PDA

View Full Version : What Has Changed?


lizziedog1
October 3, 2009, 07:07 PM
Our fathers and grandfathers would grab whatever rifle they owned to go deer hunting. Some took their .30-06, some took their .30-30. their .300 savage, even .25-35's. No one balked at them for having under powered cartridges. They went and shot and killed and brought home a shkinny whitetail for supper.

Were the deer more thin skinned back then? Do deer also use steroids? Was the ammo loaded hotter then today? Did the last generations have some magical ability to kill deer with bullets not powered by cartridges that require several adjectives in their names?

Really, seriously, what has changed with deer hunting?

roy reali
October 3, 2009, 07:21 PM
Back then, they did not ask anyone else if their gun was adequate. They didn't read articles stating that their cartridge of choice was going to bouce off the deer. They just went and did it.

Bella
October 3, 2009, 07:28 PM
A wife of a good friend is one of the best hunters I've ever met. She fills her tags each and every year. She uses an old Winchester lever action .30-30. It even has a side mounted scope., This rig is so beat up , so ugly, it would scare other guns out of their rack.

Her husband has offerd to buy her a new rifle/scope combination. She gives him a look that would be perfect for Halloween. I guess, some people are old-fashoined.

ZeroJunk
October 3, 2009, 07:45 PM
I can fill my freezer with a 22 rimfire.
But, I might see a B&C 300 yards out quartering away.
No doubt there is a lot of overkill, but a 270 or 30/06 is a more reliable killer than say a 30/30

However if a man wants to learn to shoot a big magnum and can make a good shot the deer is none the worse off for it.

TJMiller
October 3, 2009, 07:45 PM
I think two basic changes: 1.Very colorful and effective advertising regarding hunting products you don't have and just discovered you desperately need. 2. Widespred ignorance of the 10th Commandent. I hear there may be a third reason. According to my wife, there is a difference between want and need. I just can't get my mind around that statement, and apparently many other American men (and some ladies) have the same blessed blind spot.

SavageSniper
October 3, 2009, 08:07 PM
The whole keeping up with the Jones's thing got way out of hand. Soo many people want more than they need. I have fallen for that too many times also.

Rigby1962
October 3, 2009, 08:49 PM
Use what you want but when you come on the net and ask “what if” your going to get people that disagree. If you don’t want to here negative responses done ask. I hunt deer with Brenneke 12 gauge 3"magnums and a 475 Linebaugh. Do I care if anyone thinks its over kill? No

rickyjames
October 3, 2009, 08:49 PM
well ya got blued guns ranging from parked to jewel like finish, then ya got stainless guns with varying finishes, then ya got stocks from plain wood to museum furniture grade. ya got different synthetic stocks painted in just about every color of the rainbow and some with all colors combined in various patterns and designs. add to that engraving on both gun and stock. ya got single shots, bolts, and levers and semi autos and full autos. you have military and civilian types of guns. and what about scopes and all the other aftermarket sighting devices. ya got pistol calibers and standard calibers and magnum calibers and now even short magnum calibers. ya have calibers ranging from .17 cal to 50 cal. and then you have custom guns.

what would happen to all these gun and ammo manufacturers and magazines we all read if all the gun gurus printed that all anyone needs is a .22, a 30/30 and a 12 guage. the economy and the gun world as we know it would come to an end.

and yeah, i have 18 different rifle calibers so i guess their advertising works :)

roy reali
October 3, 2009, 09:09 PM
I was thrilled as a kid when I was asked to join a deer hunt. I really loved deer camp, all the fellows, the campfire telling of tall tales and coming up with solutions to all the world's problems. I remember their gear and clothing.

I don't remember ever seeing any of the guys wearing anything in camouflage pattern. The pants were usually some sort of denim and the shirts some sort of flannel job. Some guys wore shirts that had red pattern plaid to help with safety. Boot were whatever they owned, many were ones they used for work. No one smelled of deer urine either.

I wonder if Mr. MossyOak was such a kid going to deer camps? He saw all these guys dressed "normally" for deer hunting and decided a line of products would make him a millionare.

GeauxTide
October 3, 2009, 09:36 PM
In the 70s, Muscle Cars and Magnum Rifles were the rage. Seems like it's come around, again. The Weather Defeating, Titanium, 5 pound, .5 MOA guaranteed to 1000 yards, Ultragallactic EvapoMagnum that only drops 12" at 800 yards in a suppressed package with 4 pounds of recoil.

DWARREN123
October 4, 2009, 02:49 AM
Knew their firearms better and had to get the job done with what they had.

wyobohunter
October 4, 2009, 03:20 AM
30-06, some took their .30-30. their .300 savage, even .25-35's. Who ever said that these aren't reliable deer killers? I think if anybody ever makes that claim they'd get laughed out of the room;)

Double Naught Spy
October 4, 2009, 06:16 AM
Really, seriously, what has changed with deer hunting?

Part of what has changed is modern perceptions of the past. Things in the past were always better. People didn't complain as much. Men were stronger. Women were more virtuous. Hunters were better shooters, etc.

I can certainly remember my uncle telling my cousin something along the lines of, "You don't don't want to take no deer with that. Y'all'll spend all day chasing him down."

Translation? Not enough gun. That was nearly 40 years ago. My uncle was in his later 60s at the time.

Which leads to the other aspect that has changed, a greater focus on making clean and humane as possible kills. Notice my uncle could not have cared less about the suffering of the animal. He just saw no reason to run around the country after a wounded animal.

troy_mclure
October 4, 2009, 06:26 AM
actualy the deer are much more plentiful, and a lil bit bigger than our grandfathers day. theres more and better food for them.

also we(some of us) tend to shoot longer ranges as well. talking to some real old timers a 100yd shot with their 30-30 was highly impressive

JagFarlane
October 4, 2009, 07:36 AM
Some took their .30-06, some took their .30-30. their .300 savage, even .25-35's.

And most "what caliber should I get threads" usually end up including the .30-06, still being one of the most popular rounds out there. The .30-30 is still often used, the .300 Savage was supplanted by the .308Win but is slowly making a comeback [Savage and T/C both have production rifles chambered for it]. You talk of a circle, and yes, I think its slowly coming back down. Sure, you'll always have people talking about magnums, long distance shots, etc.
Part of it, I really think though, is just the appeal and the fun that all the other offerings bring. With the Depression Era survivors, being conservative about ammunition was just something ingrained in them. These days, we go out to the range all year round to have fun, plinking away at varying targets. We often shoot, not just to put meat on the table, but for fun. Part of that fun though, is challenging ones self with longer shots and bigger loads.
As a side note, don't fool yourself, if our grandfathers had been able to get ahold of some of the camo we have these days, they probably would have used it.
Personally, I'm in my 20's...my one hunting rifle is a .270 Win. Bought it because it was all the gun I need for what I want to hunt. And honestly, among my shooting friends, all in their 20's, all of them respect the .270Win as a good round.
If I get into bear and moose, I may move to something like a 300 WSM, but the one caliber I have wanted for about a year now....the old 300 Savage. :D
Cheers and happy hunting!

roy reali
October 4, 2009, 07:41 AM
As a side note, don't fool yourself, if our grandfathers had been able to get ahold of some of the camo we have these days, they probably would have used it.


The most successful deer hunters don't wear camo at all. Mountain Lion attire doesn't look anything like what is on sale at Cabela's on any given weekend.;)

JagFarlane
October 4, 2009, 07:49 AM
The most successful deer hunters don't wear camo at all. Mountain Lion attire doesn't look anything like what is on sale at Cabela's on any given weekend.

And yet...the Mountain Lion is the result of hundreds of years of adaptation. Its coat has adapted to give it the right amount of shading for its conditions.
However, if you wish, Tiger stripes work like camo, breaking up their pattern, as do Leopard, Cheetah, Ocelot, Jaguar....shall I go on? I think they're all very successful hunters in their own right. Sharks have a white underbelly so that when one looks up at them, it just appears to be sunlight.
Same goes for a large amount of birds...mourning doves and quail all have coloring that allows them to blend into their surroundings. Fawns have spotted coats to help them hide.

Edward429451
October 4, 2009, 09:25 AM
I forget which rag it was in but I read an article in a real old rag and the old timer was talkin deer huntin, and prolly tryin to be modern speak about it and made the statement ...you want to be sure you have 250 FP of energy in the rig you choose to assure a clean kill.../snip

Well if someone got on here talkin 250 ftlbs for deer I imagine it'd be one of the most exciting threads ever with all the academios explaining why you need a magnum:D

lizziedog1
October 4, 2009, 09:59 AM
Well if someone got on here talkin 250 ftlbs for deer I imagine it'd be one of the most exciting threads ever with all the academios explaining why you need a magnum


May I quote from a beer commercial...Brilliant!

FrankenMauser
October 4, 2009, 01:15 PM
actualy the deer are much more plentiful, and a lil bit bigger than our grandfathers day. theres more and better food for them.

I agree with that statement.... partially... for certain subspecies, and certain parts of the country....
In my neck of the woods, populations of Mule Deer have dropped terribly. Compounding the lower population, is the absence of truely healthy animals. They're all malnourished, under developed, and forced to live in terrain that was only 'optional' 20 years ago.

The problem with animal populations is people. Bigger, better, and more of it. We always have to 'improve', even while knowing that 16 plants, 23 insects, 4 birds, 2 rodents, and 1 reptile will likely be pushed to extinction; thereby permanently altering the entire ecosystem in the area.



What has changed? See above. Bigger, better, and more of it. I understand the desire for a super ultra mega magnum. I don't want one, though. My Ruger .270 Win shoots flat enough, and long enough, to reach beyond the limits of this shooter. In special situations, I might be seen with a .243 Win, 7.62x54R, 7.62x39mm, 12ga, or .220 Swift. They all have a hunting 'niche' to fill, but the .270 does it all. I pull out the other rifles for unique situations; usually where I don't want to beat up the beautiful Ruger. (Or the scope is a hinderance.)

sasquatch
October 4, 2009, 01:26 PM
Our fathers and grandfathers would grab whatever rifle they owned to go deer hunting. Some took their .30-06, some took their .30-30. their .300 savage, even .25-35's.

What has changed? TECHNOLOGY.

Most of us don't utilize the old-time rifles/calibers for the same reason that golfers of today don't still use "brassies", "mashies", and "niblicks".

hogdogs
October 4, 2009, 01:38 PM
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

wyobohunter
October 4, 2009, 09:57 PM
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.

Swampghost
October 4, 2009, 10:31 PM
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.

Art Eatman
October 4, 2009, 10:42 PM
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. :D 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
October 4, 2009, 11:02 PM
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.

Zildjian
October 4, 2009, 11:10 PM
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..

Daryl
October 5, 2009, 06:37 AM
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

roy reali
October 5, 2009, 07:21 AM
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.;)

Bella
October 5, 2009, 07:37 AM
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.

hogdogs
October 5, 2009, 07:42 AM
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

sasquatch
October 5, 2009, 09:37 AM
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...

The two Native Americans I ran into last year while deer hunting in Eastern WA were both using .300 Weatherbys.

Osageshooter
October 5, 2009, 09:40 AM
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.

Brian Pfleuger
October 5, 2009, 09:58 AM
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.

freakshow10mm
October 5, 2009, 10:07 AM
Actually, a .375 H&H does less meat damage on a deer than a .270 Winchester.

Swampghost
October 5, 2009, 08:42 PM
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.

Sportdog
October 6, 2009, 09:18 AM
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!;)

Bella
October 6, 2009, 01:01 PM
Call me crazy but give me that camo, scope sighted magnum, treestand, box blind, deer scents, etc and the results will speak for themselves.

Your kind of hunting gives me the warm fuzzies. :confused:

ZeroJunk
October 6, 2009, 03:54 PM
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.

ZeroJunk
October 6, 2009, 06:46 PM
Here is a nice deer I killed with a muzzle loader. Just looking for an excuse to post it really.:)

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn259/ZeroJunk1953/IMG_0056.jpg

ligonierbill
October 6, 2009, 08:01 PM
The difference? Money, mostly. I missed my first deer as a green kid with an old Mauser 98. When I fired, the 8-point I didn't see ran back through the drivers and almost ran over a fellow with a 30-40 Krag. He had just saved enough for a scope, but he fired point blank and missed! The next morning, he found a "bayonet" taped to his rifle. He was not amused. The deer I missed was killed on the next drive with a .35 Remington "corn sheller". Lots of wonderful rifles are debated on these forums--ain't it fun! As long as we remember that no magnum knock 'em dead will make you a hunter, we will do well. My shirt tail is still on the rafter of the "new" camp...built in 1943.

Dr. Strangelove
October 6, 2009, 08:23 PM
Back when my grandfather was a kid in the NC mountains(1920's), many families only ate meat if they shot it. He put meat on the table hunting and trapping, there were few stores and little money. Hunting was a sustenance activity, not a sport.

Fast forward to today, when most folks think meat comes shrink-wrapped in Styrofoam trays. The majority of my friends have no idea how to cook, let alone process a deer carcass. We have more money now than in any time in history and a very well developed supply chain for our food. People are disconnected from the outdoors and where their food comes from. Hunting is a sport, quickly becoming a rich man's sport if you aren't lucky enough to live in a state with large public hunting areas.

As far as modern guns, camo, climbing stands, etc., well I know for a fact my grandfather would have used those things had they been available to him. He used a single barrel break action 12 ga and a Springfield .22 single shot that he and his brother saved all year for and ordered for $4.95 from the Sears Roebuck catalog. Later in life he was able to afford a Model 94 in .30-30. As another poster put it, they used what they had available and could afford, much like hunters today.

bamafan4life
October 6, 2009, 08:29 PM
what would happen to all these gun and ammo manufacturers and magazines we all read if all the gun gurus printed that all anyone needs is a .22, a 30/30 and a 12 guage. the economy and the gun world as we know it would come to an end.

thats exactly what i tell every new shooter and they always end up with something like 300wsm .17hmr and 20 gauge (like my brother hes 300 pounds and got a 20 gauge) and you never see them shooting them cause 1. they can not afford it. 2. they dont won't to scratch them. i mean theres some shooting rifles and some hunting rifles. in my mind by todays standards a good hunting rifle is a marlin xl7 a stevens 200 and the mossberg 100atr. because these rifles can be took through the brush, droped in the mud droped out of tree stands and still take that deer. now something nicer like a browning a bolt medallion .300 win mag. well seriously wouldnt you just die if it got scratched up?

im a firm beleaver in 30-30 but the guns are just to expensive now a new one is what 350-400$ for a marlin? a used winchester (post 64) is about the same. and you can get any of the 3 rifles i mentioned in just about any caliber for 300$ new? id take the bolt action.

roy reali
October 6, 2009, 11:13 PM
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.

When nature calls, do use camo toilet paper too?;)

Sportdog
October 6, 2009, 11:24 PM
I tried it once but the results of the operation were too inconclusive!:D

ZeroJunk
October 7, 2009, 06:37 AM
I tried it once but the results of the operation were too inconclusive

LOL

nitetrane98
October 7, 2009, 09:17 AM
Lots of good thoughts here.
I believe that a lot of new stuff is bought to attempt to overcome shortcomings, real or perceived, in ones current gear. A ways back somebody actually posted that they had missed a deer. First time I guess I've ever seen that. Well, I have too. I was using a 30.06 and had nothing to blame but myself. (well me and iron sights).
What I'm getting at is if I had been using, say, a 30.30 and saw the bullet kick up dirt in front of the deer, I might have thought the round had too much drop at 100 yds and I need something flatter shooting instead of thinking, "Well I aimed wrong." or misjudged the range or whatever. I might think, "Hmmm, a .308 will fix that problem." I think some folks buy what I call "energy insurance" for a less than perfectly placed shot. And there might be some validity in that.

stingerspray
October 7, 2009, 10:31 AM
Whats changed is there's a bunch of cool new stuff to use. I like the idea of a kobra red dot sight on a saiga 308, as compared to a lever gun of any caliber. Nobody needs that to actually harvest deer, just personal taste. A lot of folks still like to use bow and arrow, muzzle loaders.

I've seen a pair of doe harvested with a 10/22, took less than 15 seconds to kill them both. It wouldnt be hard for any competent shooter to do that, but it is illegal in most places now.

Jack O'Conner
October 12, 2009, 08:35 PM
Last 20 years has brought wide spread use of plastic stocked bolt action rifles. These rifles don't ring my bell but they're obviously very popular. Pricing for Marlin, Mossberg, and Howa bolt action plastic stocked rifles seem quite low to me compared to relative cost of living.

Don't be too worried that the glorious 30-30 is dying. More new rifles are available for this cartridge than ever before. Ammo has rec'd upgrade attention from Hornady to legitimize 225 yards shots at BIG mulies!

Amazingly, Ruger and Remington have spent vast sums to develop magnum hunting cartridges that will NEVER make the TOP 10 list. Yet writers can't pen enough crap about their perceived value. In contrast, 30-30, 243, 308, 270, 30-06 (no particular order) continue to outsell other ammo by extremely wide margins. The knowledgeable hunters who buy this "common" ammo are not in minority at all.

Jack

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c146/rushmoreman/Winforky.jpg