Is there a down-side to too much bullet?

[swampdog]

Another downside to too big a caliber is a much larger weapon. The model 7 in .308 that you mentioned is, IMO, one of the finest deer rifles you can get. It's a light, handy package, good for close range shots in the brush, but it certainly has enough power and accuracy to take 300+ yard shots. I'd put a low powered variable scope on it, a 1x4 or 2x7, and you'll be set for anything you're liable to run into in the lower 48. If you can find a gunsmith who'll work on it, the stock remington trigger can be turned into something very nice . There's no need to buy a timney, but you will want to get the stock trigger adjusted. I usually set mine to 3lbs and don't mess with the creep or over-travel, but get a gunsmith to do it for you.

I have a .35 remington, also. Like guntotin_fool said, it makes a great gun for the type of hunting you describe, but I think you'll find the model 7 to be more versatile. You'll really appreciate the model 7 after a day of toting it up and down a mountain. I use 150gr winchester power points. Cheap, accurate and the recoil is very manageable in a light carbine.

Handgun hunting has it's own allure, too. I use a .44 mag, most of the time, but a .357 is adequate within it's limitations. I've taken a couple with a model 19 with a 4" barrel. If you have to do lots of climbing, you might want to consider it, again. At the short ranges you should use a .357 at, you really don't need a scope. I've played with one on several revolvers but I always end up going back to iron sights. I've found that offhand shots are much easier to make without a scope.

Whatever rifle you end up with, get a good shooting sling and practice using it. You'll be suprised at how much it will improve your accuracy from field positions.

Good Luck and Have Fun

P.S. Hopefully, you'll have some pictures to post soon.

[Art Eatman]

All in all, pistols are pipsqueaks as hunting guns (compared to most hunting rifles), until you get up into hot .44 Maggie or Casull-like stuff. That's why most pistol-hunters use the heavier bullets; better penetration.

From a bunch of years of listening and reading from those who commonly hunt with pistols, the 158-grain weight of bullet is quite normal for the .357.

Art

[castnblast]

I still like my 110 gr hp for deer. BUT keep in mind, (and context) that when I hunt w/ a pistol, I'm not that good a shot at long distances, + the deer where I hunt are small. Would I use that round in Iowa if it were legal? No. Would I use it where I hunt yes. The Max range I shoot at a deer w/ my gun is 40 yds tops. The last deer I shot was at 13 yds out of my bow blind. It's all relative. However, to me the if I were not looking for sport, and looking for the best round, I'd say a 7mm rem mag, and the others in the 277-308 cals.

I guess I need to shoot another one this fall with it and show some pics. Blows the crap out of the shoulder blade. Makes the eyeballs pop out if you shoot em square in the head... yeah, it really looks like that. (110 gr JHP.)

[Socrates]

Well, I'm going to go the other way. My two hunting calibers are 375 H&H, and, 30-06.

If you hand load, the cost factor advantage of the 30-06, .308, become much less. I'd try and find what caliber is going to give me an expanded bullet, that leaves two big holes, through the size game I'm after. 375 is not known for a tremendous amount of meat damage, but, it has killed everything on the planet. At your ranges, you could look in to 45's. I'm going to go from 375 to 458, simply because I like large holes in things I shoot. Given the right bullet, you can
have a long range 450 Watts, or, a short range stopper.
There is a well documented effect that 500 grain bullets just tend to numb things, where lighter bullets don't.

With a good reloading setup, you can go mild to wild, with the bigger calibers.

However, no one makes mil surplus ammo, like the 308, or 30-06, and, you do have to love reloading to do it.

Heck, for the size deer your talking about, you could probably use a 223, with the right bullets...

S

[Maser]

I'm not really into big game hunting because I am a cry baby when it comes to cold weather and walking around all day and stalking an animal. I used to think that the bigger the bullet the better, but after reading stories where too big of a bullet was used and the internal shock from the bullet would tear up and waste the meat. I would like to get into deer hunting and the current deer rifle I have is a Remington 700 chambered in .338 ultramag and even though I can handle the recoil, I would like something less powerful so when I am not hunting I can shoot it all day without the pain. I am thinking of a .308 or .30-06. I think those are the most versetile deer cartridges.

[Art Eatman]

Internal shock? The only meat inside the ribcage are the inner tenderloins, lying along the rearward part of the spine.

Those loins, the backstraps and the hams are the most desirable parts. Next are the shoulders--but those have a comparatively small amount of meat and it's a bit tougher. Last is the neck, and that's pretty tough stuff. Good for deerburger and chili meat, mostly.

A shot that ruins meat, IMO, is a bad hit. (I'll omit the issues of shooting a running buck.) Why would you shoot a buck in the butt? Or the spine?

Larger and heavier bullets are far less likely to expand greatly or to blow up. Me, I just don't particularly care for the recoil. (shrug)

Whether .308 or .30-'06, you drive a halfway-decent 150-grain bullet at around 2,800 ft/sec muzzle velocity and you can cleanly kill any deer in North America--and out to 400 yards or so if you're a competent shooter.

Art

[Trip20]

A shot that ruins meat, IMO, is a bad hit. (I'll omit the issues of shooting a running buck.) Why would you shoot a buck in the butt? Or the spine?

Three or four seasons ago, I was at a tavern with a few hunting friends after a days hunt. We were discussing the next days tactics over a big juicy burger and spirits. This drunk fellow over-heard our conversations, and thought it a good idea to join in.

He proceeded to tell us how he shot a doe that was walking directly away from him about 75-100yds away. He shot it right in the butt (I'll omit his description of the shot placement). He was pretty proud of the damage it did, giggling with glee when he described how the work was "darn near done" when he found the carcass.

When asked how much meat was ruined he said most of it was ruined besides the kneck. He didn't keep anything it was too messy he said.

We told the idiot to get lost.

I find too many hunters like this. Wasteful. Out to kill for fun.

[guntotin_fool]

I find the issue of meat damage comes more from velocity than it does from bullet diameter or weight. We had a guy hunt with us two season ago who was using 7mm 140 grainers in Nosler Partitions, nearly perfect deer bullets by most estimations. When I was there helping his break down the carcass a couple of days later, I was amazed that the bullet which had hit just the back of the front leg(tricep?) area and penetrated the ribcage and exitted thru the far shoulder, had just turned almost the whole ribcage to bloodshot. What happened?


We got very little meat out of the front of that deer. He was shooting a 7mm weatherby Mag loaded to about 3,400 Fps. On the same hunt, using a 250 grain soft point, my nephew shot a buck with a .35 whelen using a very moderate load of 49 grains of 4320, (maybe 2200 fps) shot a deer nearly the same way, and we had very very little waste. The same year, my daughter shooting a 6.5 swede shooting a .264 instead of a .284 140 grain Nosler Partition (for all intents the same bullet) has near perfect results, Why? Hers was traveling at about 2600 fps and the amount of blood shot meat would have fit in a small paper cup.

SO a bullet almost twice as big, but going 2/3 as fast, ended up doing a better job. To me the job is just not killing the animal, but killing it fast and not shredding the meat, killing it from all REASONABLE angles and yet not beating up the hunter so bad he ends up pulling the shot from fear of the recoil. The same bullet fired at a much more modest velocity punches a clean hole in, shreds the heart & lungs, and plows on out the far side, but leave far less "collateral damage."

Now in the friends defense, he had used the gun for several years in Missouri hunting big dear, but having to shoot from a deer stand across several hundred acre rice paddys in the bootheel near Dudley, for that his rifle and load choice are just about ideal. That load and rifle would work just as well on nervous muley's and even antelope who knew how far a rifle seemed to shoot.

Cast and blast, I commend you on your success and will not doubt you, but those 110's are the least desirable round when it comes to deer hunting. I have seen 125's that have glanced of the head of a dear, knocking the deer cold, but definitely not killing the animal. You want fun, flip a ko'd deer on its back and try to start gutting it when it decides to wake up and start kicking the poop out of you. I was there and it was not fun for about 20 seconds. I have seen the aforementioned 125 hit a deer from the front quarter, that basically just followed the shape of the shoulderblade and despite blowing a pound or two of meat off the deer, the animal was able to take off running and nearly got away, only it running past another hunter who finished it off for us, kept us from losing a seriously but not immediately mortally wounded deer.

A 140 or 158 soft point is just a much better choice for deer.

[FirstFreedom]

Well-put GTF.

[Art Eatman]

Well, there's killing and then there's killing clean. Dangfino. I guess folks just put the crosshairs "somewhere in the brown" and hope something good happens.

I pick out a particular place on the deer that I want to hit. I've already proven at the benchrest that the rifle will hit a gnat's wing joint. That's over and done with. I've practiced on targets from hasty rests and from offhand, so I know my limits.

But I've also learned where on Bambi the eating meat ain't, and I try to miss the good stuff. Seems simple to me.

Sure, sometimes, all you have is a quick glimpse and there's no time to actually plan a shot. You pretty much have to take a snap shot. About all you can do then is quit worrying about eating shoulders, I guess. Priorities and all that.

Art