bring enough gun !!

[tahoe2]

I'm sure this has been said before, but so sick and tired of people trying to kill large animals with minimal cartridges.(can I shoot an Elk with a .243? or a Grizzly with a 30-30? ). C'mon people!, Aren't we as hunters obligated to dispatch animals as effectively as possible ??
Sorry; just venting against those with egos bigger than their rifle or pistol craft. Too many animals run off to die or don't die, only to suffer for the rest of their lives. ( I am not an animal rights guy ). Just heard a story about the one that got away, because some tool who is a "great shot" took a pop at an elk @ 500 yards away and hit him but didn't recover his animal.

[Bigfatts]

I agree, no reason to use a minimum. There are too many people that say they are confident they could use an inappropriate caliber, but only responsibly when given the perfect shot within their own limitations. Well, it's irresponsible to use that caliber in the first place! It doesn't matter if it's a game animal or a pest or nuisance animal. Taking the chance of wounding something and leaving it to die a slow painful death either from the shot or starving because it's crippled is simply inhumane. I am no activist by any means but animals are very important to me both as a sportsman and personally. Many people will say they are confident with their rifle and so it's ok. Me, I'm confident with my rifle AND my caliber.

Of course, I also think that if you can't get reasonably close to your animal you're not a hunter, you're a shooter.

[rickyrick]

It's more about the person doing the hunt than the rifle or cartridge choice.

If the bring enough gun theory was true, then there would be no bow, muzzle loader, or shotgun seasons or hunts.

Above all, discipline is required to make the best shot with the chosen weapon.

If said person makes the decision to take a marginal shot with a .243 then they will do the same with any caliber, and most likely make more poor judgements compensating for the larger margin of error the more powerful weapon affords.

[tahoe2]

True. No laws against stupidity!

[Bigfatts]

If the bring enough gun theory was true, then there would be no bow, muzzle loader, or shotgun seasons or hunts.

Not really true about the muzzle loaders or shotguns. They can both be devestating in their respective ranges. That's more of a big heavy slow bullet vs. small light and fast bullet argument. Broadheads also create a massive wound channel that kills quickly when hit in the vitals. I'm talking more about using something that is marginal for big game being used to take Elk or Moose or Bear. .243 may be ok for Deer, but there are better things that are more suited to hunting something bigger. I've heard some really dumb things in these forums: "Oh, I'd use my .30-06 on Cape Buffalo." That's more the type of thing I'm talking about.

And people that count on the caliber to do the job their shot placement can't should go to the range more. If you can't kill the animal cleanly, don't shoot it.

[nate45]

Someone who uses a smaller caliber, doesn't bother me as much as someone who can't shoot, no matter what they use.

I've seen and heard of more than one nimrod that got a deer rifle bore sighted at a gun store and then went straight out hunting with it.

I remember one guest coming to our lease and saying he was a great shot and how awesome his .300 Winchester Magnum was. We told him everyone had to check their rifles at the 100 yard range before getting in a blind. He couldn't even get on the paper. He had to get help sighting in his rifle and then only managed about a 4" 100 yard group. The guy that brought him said it was good enough. Then the guy shot a deer in the lower hind leg from about 60 yards away. That was his first and only invite.

Plus what about archery? Every year more bow hunters lose and wound animals than hi-power rifle shooters do. I've lost a few myself with a bow. Got them all right through the lungs, but i couldn't find them and I'm a good tracker.

[rickyrick]

True enough,

I used those as examples of weapons that have certain limitations.

[aaalaska]

OK you have a valid point. But how many wounded critters walk away because ,someone with the bigger is better mind set took the shot with a gun they were scared to death of ,and pulled the shot. Here in Alaska I would take a guerr the number is at least equal to those wounded by light calibers.
The choice of weapons should be one of common sense, but as the saying goes,[You can't fix stupid].

[Mike1234]

I'm far from an expert because I don't hunt. However, if I had to hunt to survive then I'll keep the .22LR for rabbits... .223 Rem for coyotes... .243/308 for whitetails... etc. I'd want to ensure the bullet does its job.

aaalaska... this thread has to do with caliber, not skill or aiming. That's a related but separate issue.

[jmr40]

Nothing wrong with using a smaller weapon as long as the person using it understands it's limitations and hunts accordingly.

[rickyrick]

Jmr40,

You said what I was trying to say, just better

[tahunua001]

ok lets take this a different direction. for years alligator hunters in the bayou have used 22lr to hunt(in some cases without even sights). if you would have asked me a year ago what the smallest round capable of taking an aligator I would have said 30-06 until I watched the show "swamp people" on the history channel, these people not only hunt gators with 22s but they do it with HUGE success. my family successfully hunted mule deer with 22LRs for years. I dont feel comfortable with that round so I go a couple notches up the ladder to .223 and still have people tell me that I am "obligated to use a larger round" and that I am an unethical hunter. a the fact is that a 223 can kill a deer and a polar bear,a 30-30 can kill a black bear, a 243 can kill an elk, a 270 can kill a grizzly, moose, and bison.

whether a hunter has the skills to use these rounds effectively is where the water gets murky and everyone gets divided into caliber wars. I bought a 300 weatherby mag because I didn't feel comfortable hunting elk and black bear with a 243, that decision had nothing to do with the round but rather with my own confidence with my abilities with that round. not everyone has the money to go out and get that heavier rifle with ultra expensive ammo and for the guys that say to "start reloading" not everyone has the money to go buy a reloading bench and all the manuals to go with it. if you are poor and need cheap meat and a surefire place of getting an elk but all you have is a .257, I would heavily recommend that you get the heaviest bullet for that gun and be picky about what shots you take but to say that someone is obligated to use a heavier round is just like saying I'm obligated to buy a ford 150 if I want to do some landscaping work because my dodge dakota is a marginal vehicle for the job.

[tahunua001]

I'm far from an expert because I don't hunt. However, if I had to hunt to survive then I'll keep the .22LR for rabbits... .223 Rem for coyotes... .243/308 for whitetails... etc. It's cruel, selfish, arrogant and ignorant to "underkill".

you would eat a coyote? man you are my new hero

aaalaska... this thread has to do with caliber, not skill or aiming. That's a related but separate issue.

actually it is quite central to the discussion. for the better part of a century the go to round for deer hunting in this country was the 30-30, only recently have I heard people say it's marginal for the task and that it's a bad idea to use unless you absolutely have to. what changed? the deer didn't get bigger. they didn't learn to make and wear flak jackets. the only thing that has changed is it's no longer a matter of life and death if we miss that shot. if you dont bring an elk home and put it on the kitchen table you can always go to the super market and get a pound of hamburger. we have longer work weeks, shorter hunting seasons and fewer family vacations out in the woods so people are loosing a lot of the mentality behind hunting, they are more willing to take that iffy shot because it's not a huge deal if the game gets away. 30-30 is more capable of taking big game than ever with better factory loads and home loads and yet fewer and fewer people trust it to do the job it was intended for in the 19th century, it's a state of mind argument, pure and simple.

[Mike1234]

^^^ I never said that .30-30 is marginal for white-tail deer. It's about equal to .308 Win which I sited as just right for that animal. It is NOT the "correct" round for taking down "big" game. Yes, it can. But it isn't morally right.

Let's say that someone shoots ME and I'll have no way to defend myself nor have any hope of surviving in the end. I'd want that person to use a 12ga to my head... not a .22LR to my gut.

I'm just sayin'...

ETA: Before anyone argues about "shot placement" (gut vs. head)... yeah, with no hope of surviving I'd FAR rather have a 12ga shot to the gut than a .22LR shot to the gut... or a 12ga shot to the head than a .22LR shot to the head.

[rickyrick]

What its gonna boil down to is this;

It's already been alluded too...

Finding the game....its easier to blow a big bleeding hole in the side of the animal and tracking it than placing a skilled shot to the spine or brain and getting close enough to do so. Because bragging about the animal at the water cooler is really the most important part... not humanely killing the animal....not putting meat on the table.

[jmr40]

Killin stuff ain't hard. Poke a hole in the lungs and they die within a couple minutes. How you do that is up to you. If you are skilled enough and brave enough it has been done for 10,000 years with spears.

Getting close enough to put a 223 round into a moose lung ain't unethical. Shooting a moose in the butt with a 375 magnum is.

[tahunua001]

Getting close enough to put a 223 round into a moose lung ain't unethical. Shooting a moose in the butt with a 375 magnum is.

my sentiment exactly

[Mike1234]

Bring enough gun as the OP wisely suggests. Yes, shot placement is paramount. But so is enough damaging power. Are you going to kill an elephant with a .22LR? Maybe. Should you try? NO!!

ETA: Toned down my post a bit. I guess I'm pretty passionate about quick/humane kills.

[rickyrick]

I think the argument is about using a rifle that's on the low end of acceptable choices for a particular animal.....not about using a .22 on an elephant.

[Mike1234]

... why choose those alternatives?

ETA: Toned down my words.

[tahunua001]

^^^ I find it ironic that most people that say someone is hardheaded and argumentative is also being hardheaded and argumentative. caliber wars are waged in a ocean of gray and both sides are arguing black and white.

when a person is asking "is my caliber able to kill ****?" is asking because he/she really does not know. an elk is bigger than a grizzly bear and yet it's easier to kill so some people really don't know better. that does not necessarily mean that they are unskilled. I had almost no handgun experience before shooting my M9 quals and I scored expert first time up so some people are just naturally good or someone may have been shooting for years and is just now considering hunting for the first time.

you cant say it cant be done if it can and you never know what is a good or bad idea based on the fat that you dont know where a posters skill level lies.

EDIT: so far just about everything on this thread has been the argument of marginal versus overkill and you are arguing, quite literally, the absolute opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Mike1234]

*deleted*

[rickyrick]

Maybe a guy buys a rifle for a particular activity....scrapes and saves for months, now this rifle cans also be acceptable for a different animal, suddenly he has no right to hunt that animal because it doesn't fit some richer guys skill set.....even though the shooter and the rifle are capable.

[Mike1234]

^^^ I'm far from wealthy. I will say that, if it comes to survival of self and family then yes, I do understand hunting with less than adequate calibers had I no other. But... this is not the premise of the OP.

ETA: Toned down my wording.

[nate45]

If one checks the Colorado Big Game Laws, they will find that a .24 caliber rifle using a minimum of an 85 grain bullet and developing a minimum of 1000 foot pounds at 100 yards is legal for elk.

Colorado has an excellent game department and they based their minimum on what they knew for certain, was plenty of power to kill an elk.

Common sense says you don't take 500 yard shots at elk with a .243, but people do it anyway. Common sense also says one should practice and be proficient with their hunting weapon. Although, as I noted in my first post, not everyone does.

Blaming rifle cartridges that are known to be effective, instead of blaming poor marksmanship and poor decision making is the wrong way of looking at it. Larger calibers than the legal minimum, don't make up for poor marksmanship.