PDA

View Full Version : Caliber less important than hunting skills(I think magnums are overrated)


DobermansDoItGoofy
April 20, 2006, 12:06 PM
I have a few rifles ie. a 22. a 30/30 , a 243, two 308's, and a 375H&H...

I notice the 300Win. has become popular; it's not my favorite because personally if I need a lot of power in serious bear country...my 375H&H gets the job done. The 300 Win. - for me - seems to offer too little for the bear and too much for the other stuff. Also a 375H&H is not so bad in regard to recoil; if I'm to be battered by recoil I'd just as soon take it from the 375H&H as to get it from a 300Win. The 300 Win. is a fine round - but it's just not my cup of tea. Most of the time I use the 308. There seems to be a 'magnum fever' and I see a lot of debate about 'which caliber is more deadly' - but there are a lot of other hunting factors that don't get enough attention:

1) If you shoot a deer with a 257 Weatherby(100gr) at a distance of under 200yds...you might blow up the deer and cause a lot of unwanted meat damage. A 375 H&H would cause less meat damage! So if one's blind is set up overlooking a valley where your maximum shot is 150 yards...why on earth are you out there with a 257 Weatherby and a 3-9x scope...when a lever action 30/30 ...would be better? The 257 is fine - but for deer a 120gr. is a better choice...but with a 257 you have to also count on a lot of range,more recoil, more expensive ammo and shorter barrel life.

2) I always get a creepy feeling when I'm out in the woods...and I hear folks banging away with a big magnum... Invariably they are shooting at game that is less than 200 yards away...and they often don't think enough about what their bullet is going to do once it exits the deer and continues off into the woods beyond...

3) Is the 243 big enough for deer? Hmmm... I keep hearing the 243 described as a child's round - as if it's some sort of anemic weakling not to be used by real men. Invariably the same folks who talk about the 243 being weak...are the same folks who talk of the 44mag. and the 30/30 as being good ol boys... Yawning... The 243 is flat shooting and far more potent than the 44mag. or the 30/30. The 243 offers a pleasant shot with little recoil.

4) Hunting Guides are sometimes not impressed by 50yr.old boys with brand new $3000 300 Win Mags. that get aimed like bazookas... Hunting Guides are impressed by 50yr.old boys who can take an old rifle in a 243 or 308 or whatever - and hit where they aim!

5) Know what you're hunting and how to hunt... Be a good marksman. Practice safety. Invariably it's always hunting skill - not caliber - that determines success. A Bow is nice. :cool:

mikejonestkd
April 20, 2006, 12:14 PM
I agree with almost everything in your post.

It all comes down to putting a decent bullet in the right place.

No wiz bang super duper magnums for me. less is more for the most part.

I have a neighbor that frowns on the .243 and similar rounds but claims that the .44 and .454 mag are gods gift to hunters and that modern deer are bulletproof to anything that doesn't start with a .3... and end with a MAGNUM
All you have to do is look at a ballistic table and see that almost all centerfire rounds that can put about 1000 ft/lbs of energy at a given distance will drop a deer, given good placement and proper bullet construction.

>>>5) Know what you're hunting and how to hunt... Be a good marksman. Practice safety. Invariably it's always hunting skill - not caliber - that determines success. A Bow is nice.

I agree....

Art Eatman
April 20, 2006, 12:24 PM
Wellllll, when it comes to guns, a lot of folks seem to have big billfolds and small brains. :)

Face it: A lot of city guys don't have a lot in the way of hunting skills. No way they could grow up with the background knowledge of the wild lands. (Wild being a relative term)

They read some magazine articles and hang out a bit at a gun store and wind up buying into the mystique of magnums and Ma Bell's "Reach out and touch someone." And they buy a lot more recoil than they need.

At my mule deer camp, though, I'd rather have a guy show up with a .300 WinMag than with an SKS...

Art

madmurdoc
April 20, 2006, 12:56 PM
I have to agree on some points of this post. 300 Win is extremely heavy for Whitetail. The magnums do retain a lot of usefulness in their element, that is the long range big game hunt. I would say, the problem with using them against say Whitetail or Mule deer is not the mass of the animal but difference the ranges they are designed for and the ranges where they are being used commonly. The .300 Win will carry its stopping power at much greater distance and flatter tragectory than the .30-06, but when ranges get close the bullet will easily thru-and-thru delievering less energy to the target.

I hunt with a .30-06 myself, my Garand is my baby, but I use it more out of availability and familiarity. I have fired more than a 1000 rounds through Garands, most through my own, and I am most comfortable with where and how it is going to shoot. It is more responsible for me as a hunter to carry it than to carry a weapon that I have less practice with, though it is more appropriate in power. I would prefer to use a .308 or .270 because of the performance at the ranges that I normally hunt. Even my M1 is on the heavy side for deer, my typical prey, but cost prevents me from setting up a new rifle now.

I believe the magnum craze has grown partially out of the more power mentality. The magnums definitely have their place in the dangerous game and long range, open land hunts. The issue I think stems from the migration of arms, if you will, from the western and prairie hunts to the eastern U.S. hunting grounds. My state has a line that splits the lower peninsula in half. The lower portion is shotgun and handgun only, the upper half and the U.P. is open to rifle as well as the others. This is based on population and hunter density, to my knowledge, to make the season safer.

The point I would like to make is that the choice of weapon is dictated by more than the game you hunt, environment must be considered as well. Magnums do not mean instant kills. I have seen deer run more than 70 yds with a 180 grain .300 Win right through the heart and others drop from a single load of buckshot, on the same property.

Be safe when in the field; know your weapon, target, and beyond. Stay safe and practice up while we enjoy the nice weather of spring.
Have a good one everybody.

gunslinger1911ACP
April 20, 2006, 02:11 PM
a larger caliber is no substition for a well placed shot.

rnovi
April 21, 2006, 12:24 AM
Large caliber vs Power I think is a better question here. But there is absolutely no disagreement that a well placed shot is a requirement!

I have one rifle (at the moment) - a Rem 673 in .350 RemMag. I bought it for several reasons:
1. I loved the looks. Subjective, but still, it's MY gun and I have to like it. That laminated multilayer stock just makes me drool every time I see it...
2. I LOVE oddball cartridges. The .350RM doesn't get much play at all, even moreso with the advent of the shortymags.
3. I like the .35 caliber. I think a bigger hole gets the job done a bit more efficiently, all other things held equal.
4. I reload and can pretty much make the cartidge do pretty much whatever I want. (I load 125gr .357 mag bullets for varmints and up to 250gr slugs for the nasty tough stuff)

Perhaps most importantly, I bought it as a ham-slammer. The .350 is certainly up to that task as well as taking anything in North America. 250gr bullets at 2500fps...yeah, it CAN do that...But why would I want to do that to a deer? Hog? sure. Deer? Nahhhhh.

For deer I drop a 200gr bullet down to 2400-2500fps (factory load is around 2800fps) effectively duplicating a hot .35 Remington.


I didn't buy the gun because it said "Magnum" on the box of bullets. I was seriously considering the Marlin Guide Gun in .35 Remington (and I will still buy one! LOVE the look!) but I needed something that could carry 300 yard effective shots on Big Game. And I was (and still am) sold on the .35 caliber. I could have gone with the Whelen but then I saw the "Ugly as only a mother could love" .350 RM cartridge and I was done. A warthog. And I got a good deal on it as well.

Since I handload, it's easy for me to make the gun do what I want. Pistol bullets for varmints...cast bullets over unique for plinking...250gr grand slams to anchor any NA animal to the ground. Versatility - IF and ONLY if one reloads.

I personally believe in the old addage of "Use enough gun". And I also believe one does not need a .416 Rigby howitzer to shoot a deer. Sure, you can do it, but why? It won't be any deader than a heartshot deer with a .243.

It's just my belief that, all other things held equal, an animal hit with a larger caliber bullet will likely die quicker than an animal hit with a smaller round. I'm not really concerned about the animal dieing (although I want it to die quickly).

I AM concerned about the Elk that gets hit by a "too small a caliber bullet" that can run for an hour before dieing in some place where it will never be seen again.

Use enough gun for a humane kill.

And use the gun you love to hunt with.

The rest is academic.

Ranger Al
April 21, 2006, 01:17 AM
I personally have both rifles 30-30 and 7 mm Mag. The 7mm Mag work great on open range and distance over 200+ yard shot. The 30-30 winchester Ranger is awesome at brushy terrain where thick brushes and closer shot is potential. I wouldn't shot my 30-30 at a deer at more then 100yd shot. I guessed my old age want me to get closer to the animal for better shot. Last season, I took a mully 4X4 at 210 yard with my Ruger M77 7mm Mag loaded with 139 grain Horndy. It got the job well done, needless to say I don't think he know what hitted him. I too though I missed cause it hitted where I aimed (the chest).

Early season for me is 30-30
late season 7mm Mag

Clayfish
April 21, 2006, 11:51 AM
Very well said. Shot placement is much more important than caliber. I'll never forget the time I was fishing from the bank of a small pond and a medium-small (80lbs) boar wandered too close to me. All I had was a ruger single-six .22lr. It only took one shot to the head to incapacitate him. I would never hunt hogs with a .22 but it just goes to show you how much more important shot placement is.

DobermansDoItGoofy
April 21, 2006, 01:39 PM
I think the 257 Roberts and the 300 H&H would be nice to have around.
One can still find the 257 Roberts but the 300 H&H is practically gone with the wind. Perhaps it was the 'magnum craze' that helped bury their popularity...but when one looks at the ballistics...it seems that the 257 Roberts and the 300 H&H offer what a lot of hunters are still seeking ie. something powerful but not too powerful and something inherently accurate.
The old 300 H&H might pose some problems for reloaders in regard to durable brass... but it seemed to nicely fill the niche between a 30-06 and 300 Win Mag. A lot of the mags seem to be reinventions of the wheel.
I like my 308. It's short and ugly, but it's downright versatile.
For hogs my 30/30 usually is the rifle I choose, and for the woods and anytime I'm counting on shots(for deer)under 100 yards...I usually go with the 30/30. For more open shots(for deer)where I count on shots under 200 yards or so ...I go with the 243 and a 2-7xscope. For shots where I might have to reach out a bit beyond 200 yards...the 308 is good. I've used the 308 on pronghorn too; it gets the job done. It's good to have a rifle that can reach waaaay out there, but I think a lot of marketing overemphasizes it ie. a big part of hunting is getting within a reasonable range. For me, I try to at least get within 200 yards. Pronghorn are an exception...but even then one doesn't want a huge magnum because the pronghorn is so small and a follow-up shot is easier with less recoil. If Pronghorn were like big deer or an elk...then the 300 Win. might be the choice. Elk? I can see why folks like the 300 Win. but at 200 yards my 308 still packs enough wallop and penetration...

PSE
April 21, 2006, 01:40 PM
my list of hunting skills in order of importance.
#1 patience( coupled w/ the ability to endure hardships)
#2 knowledge of anatomy
#3 tracking by blood and fauna disruption
#4 riflemanship
#5 discretion

FirstFreedom
April 21, 2006, 02:24 PM
Caliber less important than hunting skills

You got that straight, Jack!

Jseime
April 21, 2006, 09:05 PM
so if all of the serious hunters around here agree that magnums are not needed and the .243 is a great deer round how come brownchesterremruger are all still cranking out newer hotter magnums.

oh wait everyone that doesnt know how to hunt and thinks that taking down deer at 1000 yards is really cool and doesnt know that they should simply buy a .30-30 and get sneakier

rnovi
April 21, 2006, 11:03 PM
The gun makers are producing the Magnums because they sell. It's all about the money.

Why do Corvette's sell? Horsepower.

Why do Magnums sell? Horsepower.

Why does Sex sell? Ummm, cuz we're guys. Well, most of us here...

Jack O'Conner
April 21, 2006, 11:23 PM
There is a wide perception that a hotter cartridge gives the hunter a certain advantage or edge. While this has been proven to be false, the perception is actually growing and not shrinking. Magnums are here to stay and continue to sell well.

30-06 is widely used as a hunting cartridge across our planet. Hundreds of thousands of animals have fallen to its deadly bullets from Africa to New Zealand, across Europe and USA. When someone tells you their 300 magnum kills better, simply excuse yourself from their presence.
Jack

Old Time Hunter
April 22, 2006, 11:44 AM
I like Nascar over Formula 1 and the NFL over the PGA. Give me something that lets me know by a good kick that I took the time to make sure my shot is well placed. If I have to make a shot over a couple of hundred yards, I'll have to give up hunting, 'cause that ain't hunt'n! Hunting and bagging a good size Elk in the Bitterroot with a .44 Mag in a '94 Trapper. Especially when you first spotted the bull at over 500 yards down the valley and take the better part of a couple of days on your belly stalking to a 45 yard shot. Throw that .243 to the guys who do all there talk'n big at the range.

garryc
April 22, 2006, 12:22 PM
If I'm going hunting for darn near anything in the continental U.S. I pick one of two rifles, a 700 classic in 7x57 or a 1895 guide rifle in 45-70. The choice is made by terrain rather than power. Now I have a remington classic in 8x57 that I want to hunt with.
I've killed deer at 500 plus yards with a 300mag. Who cares, thats the kind of shooting I do at woodchucks. I don't consider chucks hunting, thats more like shooting. Deer and the like get the rifle, shotgun ML or bow. The most exciting, frankly, is the bow with the caplock ML next

Shooter 973
April 22, 2006, 03:15 PM
To many guys think that Magnum stamped on the bottom of the Brass actually means MAGIC!!!
I've seen more than a few guys that think that shooting a Magnum will make up for poor shooting in general and poor shot placement. Lots of them are a little scared of their rifles because it kicks them a bit to much. They would be better served with something that they could actually shoot well.

But Machismo wins out more often than not!!! :o

aspen1964
April 22, 2006, 03:46 PM
the only time I think maganums are not overblown is when hunting large, dangerous game...otherwise being a good shot is more important...

prime8
April 22, 2006, 10:40 PM
Its my understanding that Most magnum cartriges travel faster.. If thats true, they spend less time in the air, and are less effected by the wind. That means.... A good shooter, can place a good shot at longer range! Your not going to crawl up on a prong horn, or a mountain goat. If you can make consistant shots at 500 yds with your current calibur, then theres no need for a magnum.. Unless you like a little kick with your wheaties, like me! Theres a reason the Marine corps shooting team uses it.. .300 Win Mag, Its whats for dinner! lol

Pointer
April 22, 2006, 11:25 PM
The "thing" about the .270 is that it shoots flatter and faster than the 30-06...:rolleyes:

The "thing" about 30-06 is that it is so damned good that everybody copies it... like the .25-06, 27-06, 28-06, 33-06, 35-06, 30-06 short (.308)... etc, etc, etc... :rolleyes:

The thing about magnums (.300 H&H, .300 Win, .300 WM is that they can do everything the 30-06 (and .270) can do with heavier bullets...

The lighter bullet cartidges like .243, .257, 25-06 and 27-06 (.270) are either for lighter game or "lighter" shooters... ;)

The .378 Weatherby Magnum is certainly better suited for bigger thick-skinned animals than the 22-250... :cool:

What the hell is so overrated about that? :confused:

Wisby
April 22, 2006, 11:40 PM
My first Deer Gun was a 30-30 I got when my Papa passed away. My second was .280 my Father gave me when I was 14. Between the Two I feel ready for anything. If I'm hunting Brush country or shot's under 100 yards I take the 30-30. If I have a better chance of a long shot I take the .280. This last year I happen to shoot a Doe at about 75 yards shooting down hill and hit her higher than I wanted too. She ran about 20 yards and I'm impressed she got that far the .280 pretty much destroyed her entire right side. If her leg would have been back in the bullets path i'm pretty sure it would have knocked it off. It was one of the easiest tracking Jobs I've ever had to do though.

Has time goes on i'm sure i'll have a few more Special purpose Calibers in my collection like a 25-06 or a 243 and 338 probally.

Jseime
April 22, 2006, 11:46 PM
The .378 Weatherby Magnum is certainly better suited for bigger thick-skinned animals that the 22-250...

What the hell is so overrated about that?

I know that the .378 WM is better for moose and larger than a .22-250 is, heck everyone knows that I think what we're trying to say here is that magnums are overrated because some clowns shoot deer with .378 Weatherbys and think that a .243 is far too small and weak.

Death from Afar
April 23, 2006, 03:40 PM
Great thread.

Their is no use in New ZEaland for any caliber much more powerful than 30-06. Quite a few use the 7mm and 300 magnums, but surprisingly view. I am not sure why one would put up with the hard to find, expensive ammo, excessive muzzle blast, a recoil that can lead to a flinch, and so on with the big belters. I guess they sound cooler. ( I accept north america is a bit different, if I was in bear country I would take at least a .375 H&H. And a Mortar. And a 40mm launcher :p )

Pointer
April 23, 2006, 10:01 PM
how come brownchesterremruger are all still cranking out newer hotter magnums
Because they don't think they're overrated??
Yuh think?

How about...
The thing about magnums (.300 H&H, .300 Win, .300 WM) is that they can do everything the 30-06 (and .270) can do with heavier bullets...

But that can't be true... they're overrated!!


To say that magnums are overrated... is like saying that small calibers are overrated...

For what?

I think the .243 and the .270 are revered for no damned reason worth noting...
except that they don't hurt the shooter's shoulder...

Also, the 30 caliber armor piercing bullets are not effective against tanks...

Therefore they must be overrated... :p :p

DobermansDoItGoofy
April 24, 2006, 03:22 AM
I'd say the 30-06 is to North America what the 375 H&H is to Africa - and that both of these rounds...are very tried & true. Where things get messy - is when every cartridge gets 'magnumized' ie. the 300 H&H gets replaced by the 300 Win.mag. and the 300 Win. mag. starts getting used as a 'white tail deer round' and people get told that the 30-06 and .308 are sissy cartridges and that the 257 Roberts is just 'okay' but what's really needed on a pronghorn is a 'magnum'. Is the 243 really too weak? I don't think so. In fact - I'd say it's actually gotten stronger ie. bullets are better than they used to be. People sit around the campfire and talk too much about bullets - and not enough about how to actually hunt. Could it be that the bullets have gotten better, but that the hunters have gotten worse? Hmmmm... :cool:

Pointer
April 24, 2006, 04:49 AM
some clowns shoot deer with .378 Weatherbys and think that a .243 is far too small and weak.
There is not one iota of difference between the dork who thinks a .243 is a great round, and the dork who thinks that the .300 Magnums are the best for deer sized game.

Too many guys think that Magnum stamped on the bottom of the Brass actually means MAGIC!!!
They think this kind of mouthwash because people express idiot opinions in shops and threads like this one...as if those opinions were the facts of life. With unqualified remarks like,
"I think magnums are overrated."

The trash shooters and novices will repeat this tripe... over and over and over... :(

I repeat... the purposes are specific... Magnums move bigger bullets faster and flatter...and that's all there is to it!

It isn't the Magnum or the non-Magnum that matters...
It isn't JUST the marksmanship that matters...
It isn't just the penetration that matters...
It is what bullet will have the correct terminal effect for the chosen target and how to get it there in a timely manner!

And that's all there is to that!

I think the 257 Roberts and the 300 H&H would be nice to have around.

THAT pins this thread to a knat's ass... :p :rolleyes:

garryc
April 24, 2006, 08:49 AM
There is not one iota of difference between the dork who thinks a .243 is a great round, and the dork who thinks that the .300 Magnums are the best for deer sized game.

That has more to do with personal experience. In my experience the 300mag would rarely have made any improvement on my 7x57 or a 308 or even a 303 brit. The ranges are just too short in the eastern woods I hunt for the advantage of the 300's speed and range to make much of a difference.

They think this kind of mouthwash because people express idiot opinions in shops and threads like this one...as if those opinions were the facts of life. With unqualified remarks like,
"I think magnums are overrated."

Over rated for my purposes. If I was to go out west for elk or mulies you can bet I'd carry a 300. Of course shoot that gun extensively at all ranges and even woodchuck hunt with it for at least 6 months before going. If I'm spending thousands for such a hunt I'm going to prepare myself for a longer shot than I'd ever likely see in the east. It gets the nod because It might make the difference.

It isn't the Magnum or the non-Magnum that matters...
It isn't JUST the marksmanship that matters...
It isn't just the penetration that matters...
It is what bullet will have the correct terminal effect for the chosen target and how to get it there in a timely manner!

Exactly!! And either it makes the difference or it doesn't. Here it doesn't, except in rare cases. Out west or in a bean field it sure might.

Mannlicher
April 24, 2006, 09:34 AM
I agree that shot placement is darn important, but so is the decision on caliber. I think its a bit of a slippery slope when we start to deride the choices of others, based on what we feel is best for us.

dfaugh
April 24, 2006, 10:47 AM
I think alot of this has to do with some peoples perception that they (think they) want to be able to make really long shots on game...Plus the "bragging rights" for having the latestgreatestfastest bullet on the planet.

But, face it, most shots will be on relatively fragile game(deer) at relatively short distances (under 150 yards, probably under 100), so what's the point?

The exception(s) would be plains shooting in the midwest (and there's lots of decent non-magnum cartridges for that) and Big Stuff in Alaska or Canada, where you might want a bit more.

Having said that, if I was gonna buy a new rifle (not in the forseeable future) I might consider some of the newer magnums...Why? Just in case....

garryc
April 24, 2006, 11:24 AM
I think alot of this has to do with some peoples perception that they (think they) want to be able to make really long shots on game...Plus the "bragging rights" for having the latestgreatestfastest bullet on the planet.


Actually it's kind of funny, my accomplishment as a marksman might indicate my failure as a hunter. But, truth be known, if I would ever get a clean shot at a trophy elk at 500yrds I would take it. And for that reason I'd want a rifle capable of delivering a decisive blow. Now as far as bragging, I'd rather brag about my hunting ability. Who's the better hunter, one that shoots an elk at 500yrds or one that arrows one at 20?
To brag about shooting in the field, take a few chucks at 5-700 yards. Of course I really don't brag much, just to know that I did it is enough, who cares what someone else thinks, it isn’t a competition 

Harley Quinn
April 24, 2006, 11:54 AM
Hi,
In my opinion a 375 H&H is a true Magnum LOL.

The 308 is a nice respectable round. Pretty hard to beat for most of the stuff you will find (not prey) In the No. America's.

Since I don't own a 375 H&H, I would have to use my 458 Winchester Mag. for the big prey type (sorry, I could have it rechambered to the Lott and have a real Magnum), and I would be carring my Ruger Super BlackHawk in 44 Mag. (Oops).

When the term was coined it was because of the exisiting round and they added a millimeter or 2 and some extra horsepower (44 spl and 38 spl being changed to magnum but still being able to fire the lighter round).
Weatherby comes to mind also, 7mm and the 7mm Mag not interchangeable though.

So what is a "magnum"? It is a word, nothing much more. In todays world not much else.:cool:

HQ

FirstFreedom
April 24, 2006, 12:49 PM
Pointer, it is NOT "tripe" to say that the phrase "magnums are over-rated" is true, if you take that to mean what *I* take that to mean, and that is that they are rated by the average joe to be necessary to shoot bambi in the average environment in an average state of the 50 states - in that sense they most definitely ARE overrated. Of course, magnums are not over rated *if'n you need a freakin magnum*, such as shooting at elk at 400 or 500 yards, if you're inclined to do that. But on average, on the whole, it is not a mistake to say that they ARE overrated, since they are USED all the time on whitetail deer in all 50 states, when they are absolutely not necessarily, by any stretch of the imagination, and accomplish nothing at all except meat destruction. For example, in eastern half of my state, there are a lot of woods and very few open areas. Yet, for some reason, .300 winmags, .300 weatherby mags, 7mm remmags, all of the winchester short mags, and on and on, sell like hotcakes around here. And they surely ain't buying them to shoot elk, as there's nothing around here larger than a whitetail, except a few elk and bison on small preserves (mostly private). But the average "long shot" in the eastern woods is gonna be 60 or 70 yards, and that's from OK on to all points eastward to the coast.

BlueTrain
April 24, 2006, 12:52 PM
Well, now, I don't hunt but most of my relatives plus a few other acquaintances do, not that any of them ever invited ME to go with the. Anyhow, my step-brother, who actually lives in a log house in West Virginia, does hunt. Deer, anyway. He uses a .300 Magnum and is embarassed about it, though I don't recall what other rifles he may have. His sister is a little better at hunting than he is and I don't know what she uses either.

However, both of these people have been around and the three of us average 60 years of age. I actually may have more experience shooting than they do but very little shooting at game. The point here is that some old-times living up some hollow in West Virginia have plenty of horsepower in their gun cabinets, whether or not they need it.

I didn't know the .243 was an old cartridge!

PSE
April 24, 2006, 04:34 PM
it dont have to say MAGNUM if it just says Weatherby.

FirstFreedom
April 24, 2006, 04:44 PM
Sure it does, if it's a vanguard in .243, .223, or .308:

http://www.weatherby.com/products/guns.asp?prd=Rifles&prd_sub_type=3&prod_code=VGW223RR4O

:p

PSE
April 25, 2006, 08:11 AM
quiet thyself sinner. thou speaketh of thine vanguard as if she be of kin to tho Weatherby. She blasfemeth to speak her taken name. she be thine whore of Howa and not blood to the True Weatherby.
marketh the words i spake.
"lo and behold, them that owneth thine unpure rifle shall knash and moan at the counter of resale. for thine weatherby is none if not biscuts of the goat."

Jack O'Conner
April 25, 2006, 09:08 AM
Almost 20 years ago, I booked a hunt in Sakatchewon for caribou and moose. My guide was a weathered Cree man with a quiet but friendly nature. We spent two weeks together and I often asked him to tell me about his many hunts.

My guide hunted with just one rifle. An antique Remington auto-loader chambered for the 35 Remington cartridge. He had rec'd it second hand in the mid 1950's. The previous owner was also Cree and had slain all types of Canadian big game with this rifle. If this rifle could talk, it would tell about literally hundreds of caribou that fell to its 200 grain bullets.

This fellow thought nothing of hunting moose weighing nearly a ton with his 35. He told me he always shot twice into the chest. Although only original iron sights were used, this patient Cree hunted the tree-less tundra for caribou. He hunted from behind stacked rocks placed by earlier generations of Cree huntsmen. Partially hidden from the migrating herds, he shot many each year this way.

What's my point? I know a Cree hunter who has slain far more big game animals than I ever will. And he got the job done without fretting or worrying that his rifle was inadequate. The 35 Remington is no magnum but it is effective in the hands of a patient and skilled hunter!
Jack

Art Eatman
April 25, 2006, 09:59 AM
Y'all calm down a bit and consider this idea: The alleged NEED for a magnum is over-rated. Doesn't that make a little bit more sense?

Magnums have their place in hunting. There also are many instances where a magnum is much more than is necessary for a clean kill. The key word is "necessary".

If I KNOW my only shot on an elk will be at 500 yards, I want a magum.

If I KNOW my probable shots on smallish whitetails will be inside 200 yards, my .243 has proven quite adequate some 20+ times. However, if it's probable that I would be seeing larger deer out around 300 or more, I'd shun my .243 and take my '06.

I think it's great that we have all the choices of cartridges that we do. It's not my responsibility, however, to educate each and every gunshop customer. :D They can learn, just as the rest of us have.

Art

Harley Quinn
April 25, 2006, 10:54 AM
Hi,

If I had only enough money to own one rifle and one hand gun.

It would be the 308 lever for the rifle and the 357 for the hand gun.

Now would'nt that be a simple solution?:D

Heck, I could pick them up fairly reasonable and still be well outfitted.

HQ

Pointer
April 25, 2006, 03:28 PM
Over rated for my purposes.
Exactly!! And either it makes the difference or it doesn't. Here it doesn't, except in rare cases. Out west or in a bean field it sure might.

Now these are "qualifying remarks" and would not mislead even the stupidest visitors to the thread... Bravo!

Now the dorks and idiots and respectable newbies won't be as likely to go off repeating "chicken-sctratch" like...

"The .270 is sufficient for any North American game." :rolleyes: :mad: :p :D

DobermansDoItGoofy
April 27, 2006, 07:02 AM
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:

Superhornet
April 27, 2006, 01:09 PM
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...

Dilbert
April 27, 2006, 02:47 PM
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.

Old Time Hunter
April 27, 2006, 06:36 PM
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.

DobermansDoItGoofy
April 27, 2006, 06:37 PM
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

Savage10FP308
April 27, 2006, 06:51 PM
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

prime8
April 27, 2006, 07:42 PM
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.

rlong5
April 29, 2006, 03:35 PM
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.

Magnus
April 29, 2006, 04:03 PM
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

rlong5
April 29, 2006, 06:59 PM
At what point does shots become ethically/morally questionable?

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.

garryc
April 29, 2006, 11:30 PM
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?

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.

Pointer
May 1, 2006, 12:48 AM
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:

Art Eatman
May 1, 2006, 07:50 AM
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

garryc
May 1, 2006, 08:29 AM
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.


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!

Pointer
May 1, 2006, 05:29 PM
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:

Art Eatman
May 1, 2006, 07:54 PM
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

MeekAndMild
May 2, 2006, 08:38 PM
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?

garryc
May 2, 2006, 10:08 PM
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?

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.

Magnus
May 3, 2006, 02:00 AM
"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.

Art Eatman
May 3, 2006, 08:52 AM
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

Wild Bill Bucks
May 3, 2006, 12:26 PM
Where I hunt here in Oklahoma, about the only thing on the other side of my game, is a tree, so I don't worry to bad about it.

You go to the RANGE to shoot, and sight in. You go to the woods to HUNT.
No situation at the range will prepare you for situations in the field.

BUSTER51
May 3, 2006, 12:54 PM
And what is even better is good hunting and shooting skills and a MAGNUM. case in point last year we hunted in up state Arizona (Williams area) we glassed down a canyon and up the other side and spoted a heard of elk .I checked the distance it was 415 lazered yards I shot at a big cow (only had a cow permit) hit her with my 338/378 Weatherby mag Accumark with an IOR scope on it ,she fell dead where I shot her.my friend Scott shot at another cow with his Winchester model 70 in 3006 with a Lupey varix3 and did manage to hit her but she ran off and left a blood trail that we followed for a long while but it stopped and we never found her .he is a very good shot and rarely misses.I can't help but think if he had a hard hitting magnum we would have had to winch 2 cows off that ridge instead of one that day .so flame away on mags all you want but the work for me .:D

Art Eatman
May 3, 2006, 07:10 PM
I've seen that country around Williams.

What'll likely work on a 200-pound whitetail with an '06 probably shouldn't be tried on a cow elk. Your friend should have known better. Some shots, common sense says to pass 'em up.

The world is full of incurable optimists...

Art

prime8
May 3, 2006, 07:59 PM
1 Buster... Well put.. 450 yds cross canyon, is what they are designed to do!:D

garryc
May 3, 2006, 11:14 PM
Provided you're sure of the target and what is in front of it and beyond it.
If I'm not sure I have a back stop I'm not even firing a 22lr, or a pellet gun for that matter

DobermansDoItGoofy
May 4, 2006, 10:24 AM
I have a 375 H&H and it's a fine performer...but 400 yd. shots at elk are difficult shots. More power to you - if you can accurately hit an elk with a 375 H&H or a 378 Weatherby from 400 yards... My 375 H&H causes less meat damage than a 257 Weatherby or even a 270 Win... However, the issue I have is not so much the performance of 'magnums' - but the underestimation of other calibers and the over-reliance on 'magnums' - instead of hunting skills - to make a clean kill. Personally I try to avoid 400 yard shots... Oh, I can make'em...but there's a difference between what I can and ought to do... In most circumstances I try to be within 200 yards of the game. Pronghorns are for me an exception - and for a Pronghorn 300 - 400yds. is common...but it doesn't take much to kill a Pronghorn. Elk? I try to make it within 200 yards...and 300 yards would likely be my limit(a great deal depends on the specific situation ie. a broadside presentation in an open field at 400 yds...might be a lot more tempting than a not-so-broadside shot at 275 yds..) The problem I run into more frquently is the one of the novice whitetail hunter banging away with a 300 Win Mag. in fairly heavy timber at a small buck that is less than 100 yds.away...while I am in my stand with my 30/30 worried about where that 300 Win bullet is going after it has missed the little whitetail or gone through it... :barf: