Caliber less important than hunting skills(I think magnums are overrated)

[Pointer]

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...

[garryc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

HQ

[FirstFreedom]

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]

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]

it dont have to say MAGNUM if it just says Weatherby.

[FirstFreedom]

Sure it does, if it's a vanguard in .243, .223, or .308:

http://www.weatherby.com/products/gu...ode=VGW223RR4O

[PSE]

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]

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]

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. They can learn, just as the rest of us have.

Art

[Harley Quinn]

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?

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

HQ

[Pointer]

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."

[DobermansDoItGoofy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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." 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!

[prime8]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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.