minimum VS maximum cartridge idealogy

[Slamfire]

For $230 I hate I missed it.

At the time that rifle was selling for $230, the price of gold was $35.00 an ounce. Now gold is going for $1,200 an ounce, if you could have bought $230 in gold bars in the 50's, the return on the investment would have been much higher than buying a $230 rifle.

Really, my posting of a Weatherby ad was more of a rant against the dishonest advertising practices that we all have to live with. And I am of the opinion that as consumers, we are deluged with dishonest advertising about guns, stopping power, cartridge choices. Gunwriters are shills for the industry and as such, they push products with dishonest and misleading claims. I consider it fundamental that you cannot compensate poor marksmanship skills with gimmicks, be they reloading gimmicks, or over powered cartridges. But, touting marksmanship skills does not sell hardware.

If shooters got out to the range more often and tried to hit that 600, 1000 yard target, first time, every time, they would come to the conclusion that it is a lot harder to do, and consistency is hard. But instead, they read in the literature that all they need to do is buy more junk.

I am primarily a paper puncher, but my friends who hunt tell me their stories, where they aim, and the results. I have a bud who is making "bang flop" shots out to 300 yards with 223 Remington's on the small deer in this area. I have another who hunts with a 308 Win. He claimed he is no longer trying for heart lung shots, not because these shots are not lethal, but because the deer will run off and die in the brush. He says he is having much better luck aiming between the shoulder point and the neck, placing his bullet in solid muscle mass. He says the lung shots, the bullets were not expanding, but that same bullet placed in an area with bone and muscle, it really knocks them down.

So for him, it comes down to shot placement and bullet construction.

[Husqvarna]

I have never met this person who thinks a hard hitting cartridge is going to make up for a bad shot or poor judgment.

I rather have a hunter make a bad shot with a heavy calibre vs a small one. as I am the one tasked with tracking the wounded game

I say shoot the biggest you are comfortable with

for me that is 9,3x62 i can train with that no problem

I have trust in 6,5x55 and 308win for moose, pig and bear to but I am rather safe than sorry

ironically neither 6,5 nor 308 has failed me but I had a bad shot on a moose with the 9,3

I don't like hunters who value the meat too much, don't get me wrong I am also a meathunter 100% but I like my ammo to put a hurting on the game so it goes down quick, not varmint type bullets but close rather than the least amount of meat "wasted"

I don't liek the fablesse of using as small of a calibre as possible either
yes both red and fallow deer that I hunt on occasion will go down with a 223 just like the roedeers do but there is a definite line there between small game like roedeer and big game like red/fallow deer

[ZeroJunk]

I rather have a hunter make a bad shot with a heavy calibre vs a small one.

Yep. It does make a difference at the margins.

Some of these guys seem to think that if you shoot a deer in the same spot with a 223 or 300 Magnum the results will be the same every time . It won't. And, they seem to think that there are hunters out there that believe if they put a bullet in a big game animal anywhere with a hot rod magnum they are dead. I have not met these people. With the same shot placement the heavier faster bullet will win on the margins. That is a fact.

Where it gets complicated is that many people cannot shoot the magnums as well. That is a fact.

My problem with some of the thinking is that many people can't shoot anything well. Some think a 223 or whatever is a miracle cure. It isn't.

[Gunplummer]

Where did the magnums come in? We were talking about heavy bullets. You stand a better chance of losing a gut shot deer using a 30-30 or 30-40 than with a .223 or a .250 Savage.This is not internet garbage or outdoor magazine nonsense. I have hunted public land for years and I have seen it. I have seen deer running with all their guts dragging along side of them. I have seen two with the nose shot off. You would think it would stun them or slow them down. You really need to get onto heavily hunted public land to understand what goes on out there. Does not really matter if you shoot the leg off with a .223 or a 30-06, you are going to lose that deer with out a fast second shot. I and people I hunt with have shot a lot of 3 legged deer over the years. My Buddy is a butcher and he gets healed over "Stumpies" all the time. What it comes down to is: If you take dicey shots or are less than a good shot, a bigger bullet will not help you.

[jersurf101]

Caliber has nothing to do with 3 legged deer. Poor hunting practices, taking bad shots and poor shooting skills result in wounded animals. After reading thins thread there is certainly a fair amount of disagreement. I personally wouldnt go below 30 30 or 7.62 by 39 here in eastern NC. Out west or in more open northern big woods I may go down to a .223 or .357 magnum carbine. My problem with the .223 is that the bullet will deflect more easily off of a rib, shoulder, or vertebrae. The projectile can stay in the animal not leaving a blood trail. Good luck finding them that way in the pocosin. Better have a tracking dog that doesn't rely on blood. I prefer my .270, dead accurate and extends my comfortable range to about 350 yards. That's another problem with the .223, range.

[ZeroJunk]

Does not really matter if you shoot the leg off with a .223 or a 30-06, you are going to lose that deer with out a fast second shot.

That is what is referred to as a straw man. I doubt there is a person on the planet who thinks they can shoot a deer in the leg with anything and be successful.

[Art Eatman]

No big deal, but this thread has become more of casual chit-chat than of useful information or opinion.