I dont get the big GUNS?


PDA






txcookie
November 21, 2012, 07:00 PM
What can they do that a 270 or 30.06 cant do? With the exception of BIG BEAR why does someone need the Magnum cannons. Wasnt to long AGO that the 270 was the poop but now people act like a 270 is border line for moose and elk??? Just kinda curios on yalls veiws on thi subject.

If you enjoyed reading about "I dont get the big GUNS?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rembrandt
November 21, 2012, 07:09 PM
Famed gun writer Jack O'Conner swore there wasn't anything on the North American continent that couldn't be taken with the .270. Since he's gone the new crop of outdoor writers have bought into the "BIGGER IS BETTER" notion and have been corrupted by manufacturers wanting to broaden their product line......that's the best I can come up with.

v8stang289
November 21, 2012, 07:15 PM
Game animals these days are tougher than they used to be. What with the invention of body armor and whatnot.....j/k

I tend to agree with you. I think sometimes people think they can make up for poor shooting with a more powerful cartridge, and some people just want the latest, greatest and fastest round.

Some people may require the extra energy and range afforded from magnum cartridges, and I'm certainly not knocking anyone for using them. But I'd venture in many cases they are overkill and a .270, or .30-06 would be plenty.

Clipper
November 21, 2012, 07:23 PM
It brings to my mind some adolescent game played with a ruler...

buck460XVR
November 21, 2012, 07:44 PM
.....ever read this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61k7Mqd-BUL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Everybody has an opinion about what's enough gun. While I have resorted to hunting big game with handguns or handgun caliber carbines in my later years, I have no problem with whatever caliber other hunters are proficient with. The key word there is "proficient".

txcookie
November 21, 2012, 07:48 PM
Thats a good point !!!!

Texan Scott
November 21, 2012, 08:11 PM
If you aim for the heart and lungs, 270's fine.

If you're good at head/ neck shots, you can do with far less.

If you pull the trigger at brown and have an awkward tendency to ruin good rump roasts, 375 ruger might be kinda a "light entry-level" caliber for ya. :neener:

ApacheCoTodd
November 21, 2012, 08:12 PM
Aside from the obvious fact that ultimately, most medium bore rifles can in theory end most game - eventually, a major transition between accepted North American rifle requirements and those of say, Africa rises with the term "Dangerous Game" wherein eventually is not an option.

Most folk who once went about africa with their European and North American calibers for the actual game still had a fella about toting artillery - just in case.

I know from experience that wandering around in some parts of Africa with a bunch of M-16s a one or two M-24s left me feeling decidedly under gunned in the case of a worst case scenario encounter.

Seeing what it took for poachers to take down some of those beasts with AKs really hammer-blows some respect into your head with way more impact (NPI) than ballistic tables, theory or stories based upon what "some guy" did - and usually with uncredited security at that.

sleepyone
November 21, 2012, 08:15 PM
I had the magnum fever for a couple of years and really, really wanted to buy a 300 Win Mag, 338WM or even better a 375H&H Magnum. Never mind the fact that I have never hunted outside of our family's 200 acres in North Texas where there are only whitetail.

I had a brand new Winchester M70 .30-06 sitting in my safe because my M70 .270 is the only rifle I have ever used. It has never failed to drop a deer on the spot. I even went from a 150 grain to a 130 grain bullet due to the meat loss on the exit wound on shoulder shots. And that was at 110 yards. My new stand is at 50 yards and using the 130 grains there is hardy any meat loss.

All that to say anything over.30-06 for non-dangerous game in the CONUS does not make sense to me. I think Mr. O'Conner knew a thing or two. I absolutely love my .270 and would have no qualms about taking it on an Elk hunt should I ever get the opportunity.

Flintknapper
November 21, 2012, 08:19 PM
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n92/flintknapper/size_matters_1639.jpg

:eek:

Texan Scott
November 21, 2012, 09:12 PM
Admittedly, Flintknapper has such a hog problem, he NEEDS to be able to line em up an shoot em 3 at a time... :neener:

matt 7mm
November 21, 2012, 09:48 PM
I know what ya mean.I live in western ny in an area that was shotgun only until a couple years ago they changed the laws to allow rifles now everybody and their brother has a 300 short mag.In the terain we have 200yrds is a extreamly long shot most shots are 50 to 125yrds.I use a 7mm-08 and feel that that is plenty but have had a lot of guys tell me thats on the lite side.I personaly dont see the need for anything over the 308 family of cartriges (243,260,7mm-08,338fed,358win) but that just me.out west were you are dealing with longer ranges and bigger kritters i think the 300mags are great

Ole Humpback
November 21, 2012, 10:05 PM
For me, its the investment into a gun that drives the caliber selection. If I'm going to go spend $1500+ on a nice rifle, it better address an need that my current rifles do not.

For me, my rifle needs are as follows:

Model 81 BLR in 257 Roberts (I currently own this): Its my go everywhere do everything gun that I would use on everything except moose (maybe) or bear (definitely).

1874 Sharps in 45-70 (wish list): This would be for states like IN that have weird cartridge rules for rifles for deer hunting (just one example). Making a custom to the state shell from a 45-70 is quite a bit easier than creating one out of a bottlenecked cartridge.

M70 in 375 H&H (buy list): This rifle would be the big game counterpart to my 257. Used strictly for moose, bear, or African game (can't rule out Africa at my age so far).

22LR/22WMR: I have multiple rifles in these calibers for small game and target shooting and they all do their jobs well. I don't have a particular favorite, but the older model 22's I seem to have a hankerin for.

Win73
November 22, 2012, 12:55 AM
I have a story about a .300 Win Mag. I have a buddy that lets me hunt on his land. He uses the .300 Mag. One day we were both hunting. I heard him shoot. After a few minutes I called him on the cell phone to ask if he had got one. He said yes, but we would have to trail it. I walked over to his location. He told me that the deer was facing away from him. He aimed for its neck but the shot was low and hit the deer in the butt. The deer dropped when he shot it. However after about five minutes the deer got up and ran off. We started trailing it. It was down again but when we got within 30 yards of it, it got up and ran some more. After this happened three times, I told my buddy that the next time we got close I was going to shoot it again with my .45 Colt Blackhawk that I had on my hip. The next time we got close I did shoot it with the .45. It didn't get up any more but it was still breathing when we got to it. At that point I took my S & W Model 317 .22 out of my pocket and put a bullet in the back of its head. That finished it.

Patocazador
November 22, 2012, 04:34 AM
.....ever read this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61k7Mqd-BUL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Everybody has an opinion about what's enough gun. While I have resorted to hunting big game with handguns or handgun caliber carbines in my later years, I have no problem with whatever caliber other hunters are proficient with. The key word there is "proficient".
Buck460:

That book was about AFRICAN hunting. If you've hunted there, you know that those animals are harder to kill with lung and heart shots (neck & head shots are instantly lethal of course).
I shot a ~170 pound hartebeest with my 7x57 Imp. and a Nosler Partition bullet in the lungs and it went right down. The guide said, "when he gets back up, shoot him again in the same place." I said, "he's not getting back up!" When he DID get back up, I shot him again and he went down again. The guide said, "the next time he gets up, shoot him in the base of the neck." He got back up and I did as I was told with no backtalk.
A zebra took 5 shots to finish. They considered a .375 H&H the "small gun". You didn't get a "big gun" until you went over .400 caliber.

That's Africa, it's different. My 7x57 was perfectly adequate for moose, elk and bears here in the States.

Andrew Leigh
November 22, 2012, 05:43 AM
So eloquently stated.

It is with endless facination that I read on these forums about hunting deer with .223 etc. I understand now that it works for you guys but here we tend to want a little more oomph.

7X57 aha that is one sweet calibre.

Most game farms will not let you hunt with a .223, a .243 would be marginal for anything up to Blesbok, although it is most capable of taking Blesbok.

I plan using my new 6.5X55mm for anything up to about Blesbok etc. and my 30-06 for anything over that to Eland. Can do Eland with the right bullet but I think a .375 would be in order to complete my hunting traid for animals I can afford.

Why do you think tha animasl are tougher? Was the eating also tougher as a matter of interest?

Davek1977
November 22, 2012, 06:03 AM
I guess "average" calibers just don't appeal to me. My last two deer were shot at the extremes of caliber range that I own. Last year, I got a nice whitetail using an Ar-15 in .223. This year, not a 1/4 mile from where I shot the whitetail, I shot a big mule deer, that one with the 7mm mag Model 70. Both deer were harvested cleanly, and I didn't feel either overgunned or undergunned with either. That said, I know my limitations, and likely wouldn't have even taken the shot I killed the mulie with with the AR. Deer aren't armor plated, and aren't all that hard to kill usually. That said, I like knowing that the 7mm will cleanly take any deer within the ranges I feel comfortable shooting. The AR/.223 combo certainly gives me less flexibility, and shots are chosen more carefully. When deciding on a bolt gun for deer hunting, I was torn between 3 calibers.... 25-06, .270, and 7mm Rem Mag. The 7mm won me over, not because of "marketing" but because I wanted the most utilitarian rifle of the bunch, one that would serve me not only deer hunting, but one that is capeable of basically taking anything in N. America. Should I ever be presented with an opprotunkity for bigger game, I can use a rifle I am already intimately familiar with, while still not ebing what I would call "overgunned" for hunting the wide open prairie of South Dakota

Art Eatman
November 22, 2012, 11:16 AM
Several reasons for magnum mania.

Back forty or fifty years ago when magnums first started showing up in gunzine articles, a lot of city-type hunters were attracted to them because the flatter-shooting made it easier for long-range hunting in the Rockies. They had difficulty in estimating range in those years before lasers because of very limited outdoor experience.

Then you get the "Mine's bigger than yours" deal. It holds for guns as well as cars, boats or houses. Add in some macho, "Recoil doesn't bother me!"

K1500
November 22, 2012, 11:35 AM
Use GOOD projectiles and the smaller guns work great. That 62 grain .223 TSX will drop a hog like nobody's business.

Kachok
November 22, 2012, 12:20 PM
Remember, not everyone takes the same shots. A friend of mine just took an up the butt shot on a deer running away from him @300yd, people like that should stick to heavy .30cal bullets or larger, others won't take a shot until they get a clean broadside or quartering away shot within half that distance, those people can hunt deer with a 223. If I were in a survival situation I would want a 35 Whelen because if I am starving I am not passing up on any shot, yet in this modern world I do have some measure of pride in my shooting and find the 6.5x55 to be more then adequate for that.

Ankeny
November 22, 2012, 12:21 PM
"Big guns" can be more forgiving of unknowns (or changes) in environmental variables when shooting at distance while still delivering substantial energy on target. While I am the first to admit some of the "long range" shooting shows are absolutely sending the wrong message, velocity, terminal energy, high BC, etc. are all good things to have.

This year I killed three elk. The closest was around 200 yards and I shot it with my 7mm-08 launching a 120 grain Barnes TTSX. Plenty of rifle and bullet for the need. The third elk I shot was at 405 yards, uphill, across canyon, variable winds switching directions, and poor light conditions. It was also getting a bit late in the day. I shot that animal with a 6.5-284 set up for long range shooting. Yeah, I know a 6.5-284 shooting a 140 bullet isn't a "magnum" by any stretch of the imagination, but it is nice to have "enough gun" no matter which continent you are hunting.

Patocazador
November 22, 2012, 12:24 PM
So eloquently stated.
Why do you think tha animasl are tougher? Was the eating also tougher as a matter of interest?

Andrew, I meant tougher to bring down not tougher to eat. ;)

I have read theories that millennia of being preyed upon by alpha predators (lions, leopards, hyenas, etc.) have made the prey animals more resistant to shock through evolution. I have no idea if this is true but they are harder to kill with shots that would be quickly lethal on our prey animals.

raubvogel
November 22, 2012, 12:39 PM
Reminds me of a quote from that movie, Avatar, "And they have bones reinforced with naturally occurring carbon fiber. They are very hard to kill."

ZeroJunk
November 22, 2012, 01:32 PM
If you hit any good meat you made a bad shot, or you might have to sacrifice a shoulder if the animal is quartering toward you. Most anything will ruin meat if you put a bullet in it.

So, there is no downside to shooting magnums if you can handle them other than cost.

If you don't like them don't use them.

I find the anti magnum crowd more annoying than the have to have a magnum crowd myself.

beatledog7
November 22, 2012, 02:05 PM
So, I need only a 130 grain .270 bullet to drop a 700-lb elk at 150 yards. That bullet is carrying about 2000 ft-lbs of energy at impact. A little under 3 ft-lbs for every pound of critter. Lots of rifle rounds carry that much energy at 150 yards, of course.

That validates the theory that I need a 230 grain .45 bullet to drop a 160-lb bad guy at 10 feet. That bullet is carrying about 450 ft-lbs of energy at impact, also a little under 3 ft-lbs for every pound of "critter." Lots of handgun rounds carry that much energy at 150 yards, of course.

They teach in military strategy courses that it takes roughly a 3:1 force advantage to launch a successful offensive. Hmm...

I'm not being completely scientific or completely serious, but the numbers do make for an interesting way of looking at the caliber war.

MachIVshooter
November 22, 2012, 02:08 PM
I find the anti magnum crowd more annoying than the have to have a magnum crowd myself.

I would have to agree. Same way I find the "You don't need that big truck or that powerful car, you're just compensating" folks much more abrasive than the people who buy big trucks and fast cars (except those who buy the big, bad, expensive toy for the purpose of being "better" than everyone else. That IS offensive).

I say buy what you want, whether it's a magnum rifle or a Corvette. You don't have to justify it to anyone (well, maybe your spouse :neener:)

I have practical and "just because" stuff in many genre. I can't justify hunting deer & elk with my .375 RUM any more than I can driving my 440-powered, 9 MPG '78 Dodge Aspen Coupe to the grocery store. But I don't have to. This is America and I do it because I want to and I can. I'm not trying to impress people. I do it because I enjoy them. Of course, as it were, I usually drive a slower and more economical car, and I usually hunt with a less powerful rifle.

Point is, don't judge people without a reason. One may not need a powerful magnum cartridge to kill their intended game, but it's their money, and if they can shoot it well, who are you to scoff at their choice?

Aside from the obvious fact that ultimately, most medium bore rifles can in theory end most game - eventually, a major transition between accepted North American rifle requirements and those of say, Africa rises with the term "Dangerous Game" wherein eventually is not an option.

.270, 7mm, .30-06, .300 mag, etc. are small bore. Medium bore encompasses >.30 cal up to .40 cal. .416, .458, etc are big bore.

H&Hhunter
November 22, 2012, 02:21 PM
Here's the deal from my personal experience. Guys who primarily hunt deer don't have any need for something larger. Deer are light and easy to kill.

When you move up to elk and moose sized critters things start to change a bit. Sure you can kill a deer or a moose with just about anything with a perfect broadside shot. However in reality we don't always get a perfect broadside shot. And that is where a bigger heavier round such as a .35 Whelen a .338 WM or a .375H&H comes into it's own in North America. These rounds allow you to ethically makes those hard quartering off angle shots that you simply can't take with a lesser lighter round such as a .270 or a .7MM.

Shot placement trumps all but these heavier medium bore rounds allow you to effectively find the vitals on more shot presentations than a lesser round will. They allow you to change your perception of what a decent shot angle is. I have lost count of the number of cow elk that I've dropped in heavy timber with a .375H&H with shots that you wouldn't dream of taking with a .270 or a 7x57 or even a .30-06. Like those trotting away shots that all you have is hard rear quartering shots. I know for a fact that a 270 gr TSX out of my .375 will make it to the vitals from any angle on any elk, all I have to do is send the bullet in the right direction.

Am I suggesting that YOU need to run out and but a medium bore rifle and change the way you hunt elk or moose? Not at all, I'm just describing where I find these type of calibers to be incredibly useful. In the end you adapt your hunting style to what the equipment you are hunting with and make it work for you. When I am hunting elk with my 06 I change my hunting style somewhat from when I am hunting with my .375.

They are both great rounds and the .375 allows for different capabilities over the 06 at close range in thick timber where you might be getting yourself into trouble with an 06.

Sheepdog1968
November 22, 2012, 02:25 PM
I got a 30-06 for general hunting (though my 30-30 goes out with me more often). I talked myself and wife into getting a 45-70 should I ever have a need for something larger.

Jason_W
November 22, 2012, 02:34 PM
I don't care too much about a magnum designation, but I generally prefer large heavy bullets to small and light ones.

As H&H hunter pointed out, such rounds do make less than ideal shots a little more doable. I don't get to see many big game animals, so if I do, I want to be able to damage the vitals from any angle. Here in northern New England, you might only see one legal deer in a season.

Arkansas Paul
November 22, 2012, 02:56 PM
I find the anti magnum crowd more annoying than the have to have a magnum crowd myself.

+100

Andrew Leigh
November 22, 2012, 04:04 PM
Here's the deal form my personal experience. Guys who primarily hunt deer don't have any need for something larger. Deer are light and easy to kill.

When you move up to elk and moose sized critters things start to change a bit. Sure you can kill a deer or a moose with just about anything with a perfect broadside shot. However in reality we don't always get a perfect broadside shot. And that is where a bigger heavier round such as a .35 Whelen a .338 WM or a .375H&H comes into it's own in North America. These rounds allow you to ethically makes those hard quartering off angle shots that you simply can't take with a lesser lighter round such as a .270 or a .7MM.

Shot placement trumps all but these heavier medium bore rounds allow you to effectively find the vitals on more shot presentations than a lesser round will. They allow you to change your perception of what a decent shot angle is. I have lost count of the number of cow elk that I've dropped in heavy timber with a .375H&H with shots that you wouldn't dream of taking with a .270 or a 7x57 or even a .30-06. Like those trotting away shots that all you have is hard rear quartering shots. I know for a fact that a 270 gr TSX out of my .375 will make it to the vitals from any angle on any elk, all I have to do is send the bullet in the right direction.

Am I suggesting that YOU need to run out and but a medium bore rifle and change the way you hunt elk or moose? Not at all, I'm just describing where I find these type of calibers to be incredibly useful. In the end you adapt your hunting style to what the equipment you are hunting with and make it work for you. when I am hunting elk with my 06 I change my hunting style somewhat from when I am hunting with my .375.

They are both great rounds and the .375 allows for different capabilities over the 06 at close range in thick timber where you might be getting yourself into trouble with an 06.
Nice post.

DM~
November 22, 2012, 08:27 PM
I'm hunting with a .240 Wby. Magnum, does that count?? :)

DM

wyohome
November 22, 2012, 10:13 PM
I owned a country store in Wyoming for many years. The kind with free coffee, a table to sit awhile and a woodstove. I talked with a lot of out-of-state hunters each year, many making the trip 'out west' for the first time. Of those who talked about rifles, most, it seemed had bought a new one for this adventure, usually thinking that their 270/06/308 was not enough for the cross-canyon shots that they would soon encounter. The magnum was their answer. The problem with that is that many were in no way as familiar with the new gun as they had been with their old hunting companion of many seasons. Some had only fired them a few times, not really a confidence builder. Other than that, there is no drawback from a little more gun.

sleepyone
November 22, 2012, 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by H&Hhunter
Here's the deal form my personal experience. Guys who primarily hunt deer don't have any need for something larger. Deer are light and easy to kill.

When you move up to elk and moose sized critters things start to change a bit. Sure you can kill a deer or a moose with just about anything with a perfect broadside shot. However in reality we don't always get a perfect broadside shot. And that is where a bigger heavier round such as a .35 Whelen a .338 WM or a .375H&H comes into it's own in North America. These rounds allow you to ethically makes those hard quartering off angle shots that you simply can't take with a lesser lighter round such as a .270 or a .7MM.

Shot placement trumps all but these heavier medium bore rounds allow you to effectively find the vitals on more shot presentations than a lesser round will. They allow you to change your perception of what a decent shot angle is. I have lost count of the number of cow elk that I've dropped in heavy timber with a .375H&H with shots that you wouldn't dream of taking with a .270 or a 7x57 or even a .30-06. Like those trotting away shots that all you have is hard rear quartering shots. I know for a fact that a 270 gr TSX out of my .375 will make it to the vitals from any angle on any elk, all I have to do is send the bullet in the right direction.

Am I suggesting that YOU need to run out and but a medium bore rifle and change the way you hunt elk or moose? Not at all, I'm just describing where I find these type of calibers to be incredibly useful. In the end you adapt your hunting style to what the equipment you are hunting with and make it work for you. when I am hunting elk with my 06 I change my hunting style somewhat from when I am hunting with my .375.

They are both great rounds and the .375 allows for different capabilities over the 06 at close range in thick timber where you might be getting yourself into trouble with an 06.

Nice post.

+1 on that. I posted earlier that I would not hesitate at all to use my .270 on an elk hunt. I should probably clarify that statement by saying if I lived in elk country and could hunt elk anytime I wanted I would use my .270 if that was all I had. Since that is not the case and an elk hunt would cost me a significant amount of money and time, I would feel much more confident having a magnum caliber such as a .338 Win Mag or a 375 H&H. However, I also would need to put in a sigificant amount of range time and simulated hunting scenarios with the rifle to realize the full benefit of my new, powerful magnum rifle. I know hunting guides cringe when a guy shows up at camp with his shiny new magnum that has been sighted in by someone because the owner fired it once and could not handle the recoil.

Alaska444
November 22, 2012, 10:59 PM
Hmm, never thought of my .300 WSM as a big boomer before, just a bit more than a 30-06. Great gun and as much as I need. Recoil is a bit brisk, but not bad at all.

For Alaska, it seems that the 45-70 and the .375 H&H magnum are two of the most popular calibers. Even there, I don't consider them the big boomers. Doesn't that start with the .416 Rigby and up from there?

H&Hhunter
November 22, 2012, 11:10 PM
For Alaska, it seems that the 45-70 and the .375 H&H magnum are two of the most popular calibers. Even there, I don't consider them the big boomers. Doesn't that start with the .416 Rigby and up from there?

I'd say that the .375H&H is probably edged out or at least in serious contention with the .338 WM for an all around use medium bore in AK.

In Africa at least the .416 Rigby is still considered a bit light in elephant country. I know of at least a few guys who are really enjoying the use of a .416 in bear country in AK.

RhinoDefense
November 22, 2012, 11:34 PM
My main issue (mostly ribbing the guys) is when hunters use a 300 Magnum to shoot deer over a bait pile that's 20 yards away from their treestand. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Their money and their hunt. Situation like that I'd opt for a .30-30.

Then again my father in law used to rib me for using an AR15 in 5.56mm until he witnessed me send a single bullet 267 yards to strike the base of the skull and put the deer down where it stood. No tracking. He suggested I use it only when a deer is in bow range.

T.R.
November 23, 2012, 05:23 AM
I hunt a special unit with my 12 gauge slug gun which seems like a cannon to me. It blows big holes through the chest organs but so does my .243 rifle.

The myth that one needs a magnum to hunt in Canada continues on here in Pennsylvania. The guys tell me I'm crazy to consider a deer hunt without a magnum rifle. One guy offered me the use of his 300 MAG. Yet deer are not armor-plated at all.

TR

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

hq
November 23, 2012, 06:04 AM
Years ago there was a somewhat famous poacher who insisted that .22 is all you need to kill a moose in any situation, you just have to shoot through an eye.

Personally I like a bit more margin of error in most situations. After shooting a 3800lb pachyderm with a .375H&H seven times, narrowly missing the heart and spine because of insufficient penetration and the animal is STILL running, you kind of realize the importance of bringing enough gun. And, in this case, proper solids too.

H&Hhunter
November 23, 2012, 10:03 AM
3800lb pachyderm

Black rhino??

Citadel99
November 23, 2012, 10:14 AM
For me, it depends on the situation. Different tools for different jobs. If it only going to be whitetail under 200 yards I bring the 308 or 7-08. If I'm hunting Nilgai and deer where I will likely encounter a 300+ yard shot, I bring my 300 Win Mag. If I am hunting deer in the Southeast and am in thick woods and may have a shot through brush or limbs at a hog or deer, I bring the 45-70.

Could one gun do it all? Sure,but not as effectively. I am fortunate enough to have a number of guns and enjoy using the right tool for the job.

Mark

Art Eatman
November 23, 2012, 11:15 AM
"For me, it depends on the situation."

Write that down. :D

I guess that much of the anti-mag noise comes from those of us who see some Mighty Nimrod using one for whitetail deer, from a box-blind, and at no more than fifty yards or so. That's a serious "Duh?"

For a critter that'll bite back? A maggie is somewhere between "Good Thing" and "Absolute Necessity".

And, sure, they're helpful on larger critters at longer distances.

The thing is, there are millions more whitetail hunters than for any other game species in the US. IMO, 98% of them don't need Miss Maggie. :D

Guns&Religion
November 23, 2012, 01:12 PM
I would NEVER tell another shooter what to hunt with, so long as it was legal and ethical.

Having said that, I had a little "Magnum Fever" and was cured of it. A good friend of mine loaned me his rifle. It was a .338 Win Mag, a beautifull stainless Ruger Hawkeye Mark II. (He could not shoot it, because of a neck injury from a car accident).

I loved the look and feel of it, but when I would take it out to practice, the recoil was pretty rough. I could only shoot it 6 or 7 times before my shoulder is done. Also the ammo for it was $50 for a box of 20, and that's for the cheap stuff from Wal-Mart. (I'm not a reloader).

After a few trips to the range with that beast, I ended up buying the exact same model, in .308 The ammo is much cheaper, and I can practice more with it. I usually get in 30 rounds or so before I'm done. I like getting more shooting practice in for the same money.

TexasPatriot.308
November 23, 2012, 03:36 PM
people reading gun magazines, watching "hunting" shows sponsored by manufacturers. a lot of big egos that got to have a big gun. most of the guys that I kniow tht got big guns, cant shoot em anyway.

hq
November 23, 2012, 04:29 PM
TexasPatriot.308,

I hope your personal testimony that most of the "big gun" owners you know can't shoot them isn't a more general implication, or include an hidden corollary to "small gun" owners as another generalization? Just wondering what was the point you tried to make - some people buying large caliber rifles to compensate their personal inadequacies, and the same people being poor shooters?

Personally I'm not a pro, not even a particularly good amateur, and on top of all I'm no fan of excessive recoil. Actually I don't like recoil at all, I mostly shoot rimfires nowadays. But still I want to make sure I can put three consecutive shots through a matchbox at 150 yards at a rapid succession with any rifle I hunt with, and .460Wby is no exception. Painful and downright violent at the bench, but still no exception. Should I be concerned that next time I take that rifle to a hunt, some people might think that I'm hung like a chihuahua and tend to shoot holes in people's barns a mile away? :)

beatledog7
November 23, 2012, 04:41 PM
Having a V8 in a pickup, unless you do a lot of towing, is overkill. A good old straight six will do.

Nobody needs a 20-oz Porterhouse. That same steak is both a 12-oz T-bone and an 8-oz NY strip, either of which is more than adequate.

I'm big on analogies, and I find they can be used to either support a position or debunk one. The "why does anybody need a magnum rifle" question can be answered by a close look at the above two statement, both of which are, of course, essentially accurate but patently off point. If a man wants a V8 in his truck, so be it. And he wants the whole porterhouse, he can have that, too. The same applies for women, of course.

If you want a magnum, by all means acquire one, and learn to reload so you can get the most out of it and afford to shoot it. If you don't see a need for a magnum, then don't buy one. But don't expect any sympathy from the "get a magnum" crowd when your critter's out there somewhere suffering or rotting because you didn't use enough gun.

MCgunner
November 23, 2012, 07:11 PM
I have a 7 mag. Quick reply, shoot a little flatter, put a little more energy down range a little farther. Whether you need it or not is up to you. I haven't used my 7 mag in years hunting woods and brush as I've been doing.

jimmyraythomason
November 23, 2012, 07:32 PM
I've had a .300 win.mag.,2-.300 wthby.mags.and 3-7mm.rem.mags.none of which I had ANY need for and no longer have. My BIG guns now are 30.06 and smaller. Unless central Alabama gets invaded by grizzlies,I think I'm covered. ETA,I guess I could have included my 45-70 in there somewhere.

MCgunner
November 23, 2012, 09:35 PM
My BIG guns now are 30.06 and smaller. Unless central Alabama gets invaded by grizzlies,I think I'm covered.


http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-001.gif Pretty much says it all. If my 7 were my only gun, I'd load it down to 7x57 levels and live happy, no need to buy ANOTHER gun. But, I have a couple others cause the second amendment says I can and, well, I like rifles.

Now I CAN shoot mine quite well, just don't need that much with what I'm doing now. It's a great gun for New Mexico, though, and not bad out in West Texas.

WYcoyote
November 23, 2012, 11:58 PM
What can they do that a 270 or 30.06 cant do? With the exception of BIG BEAR why does someone need the Magnum cannons. Wasnt to long AGO that the 270 was the poop but now people act like a 270 is border line for moose and elk??? Just kinda curios on yalls veiws on thi subject.
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/mjkbpics/archie.gif

RevGeo
November 24, 2012, 10:26 AM
I guess I don't understand why anyone would be concerned with what somebody else shoots. As long as someone's gun is legal for the game they are after it's their business, in my opinion.
I was raised by a gun nut - they called them 'cranks' back then - and I grew up shooting many, many different guns in many different chamberings because the old man was constantly buying, selling and trading guns with the other cranks he knew and shot with. I've shot and seen shot a lot of animals, large and small. I am no expert but my opinion is that any rifle chambering considered a 'big game' round shows pretty much the same results from a well placed bullet. Poor performance is the fault of the shooter, generally, not the rifle or round.
Hunting is a sport for the vast majority of us. If we were totally dependent on animals we killed we would probably be raising them as livestock or using deadfalls, tiger traps, booby traps, deer drives with our neighbors etc.
Nowadays I hunt big game with a 30-40AI built on a single shot 98 Mauser action that I inherited from my old man, the gun crank. Ballistically it's pretty much a 30-06 but I can load it down to 300 Sav or standard 30-40 speeds. I have to be careful with my shot placement (as do all single shot hunters) and have turned down shots at animals due to range limitations, poor shot angle and pure gut feelings that the shot would not be right. Anybody who hunts or has hunted with a muzzle loader knows what I'm talking about.
Since I am practicing my sport as I see fit I have little problem tuning down a shot and so I don't see a need for a .375H&H to drive a 270gr bullet into the vitals of an elk from any angle, personally.
BUT - If somebody else wants to hunt that way and wants to shoot whatever gun they choose then I'm all like 'Cool!' Same thing if some guy wants to sit in a tree like a bowhunter and pop his deer with a handgun at 20 feet.
Buy whatever the hell you want and have fun shooting it. This is supposed to be about fun. If practicality were that much a part of it I probably wouldn't do it. Cartridges and calibers don't make bad shots. The guy pulling the trigger does.

Patocazador
November 24, 2012, 01:29 PM
I'm hunting with a .240 Wby. Magnum, does that count?? :)

DM
If you ever compared the cases, you realize that the .240 Weatherby is really a .243-06.
At the ridiculously high prices for empty .240 Weatherby cases it would make sense to start out with a wildcat .243-06 if that's the cartridge that tickles your fancy.

Ankeny
November 24, 2012, 02:26 PM
I guess I don't understand why anyone would be concerned with what somebody else shoots. As long as someone's gun is legal for the game they are after it's their business, in my opinion.
I would NEVER tell another shooter what to hunt with, so long as it was legal and ethical.
I suppose there is some merit in those thoughts. However, as a hunting guide I do give some consideration to what our clients shoot, and how well they shoot under pressure. One of my clients shot this deer last month. http://www.rtconnect.net/~rankeny/deer.jpg
When we spotted the deer, it was at 300+ yards with a corn field on the south and the border of the hunting unit not far to the north. It would be nice to kill the deer in it's tracks. The hunter is a good shot, the distance was not bothersome to him, and he had plenty of rifle in his hands in the form of a 7mm Rem Mag. No wind, decent rest, no worries.

Next year it looks like a .22 centerfire will be legal to hunt deer with in Wyoming. I know I would be very uncomfortable allowing a hunter to take that shot with a pip-squeek poodle shooter like a .222 or a .223. I guess I just don't little guns. :)

H&Hhunter
November 24, 2012, 03:07 PM
Cartridges and calibers don't make bad shots. The guy pulling the trigger does.

The nut behind the trigger.....:)

jdh
November 24, 2012, 03:49 PM
Need got nothing to do with it.

Patocazador
November 24, 2012, 04:11 PM
I admit that I shy away from big boomers for two reasons: the components add up to much more $$ and the main reason is I'm recoil sensitive. I don't shoot well with a gun that hammers me.

MCgunner
November 24, 2012, 04:39 PM
I've been thinking of BIG lately as in .45-70 or .454 Casull (Rossi 92, I like my .357 version). I love the way my .50 caliber front stuffers kill game DRT, yet you can eat right up to the hole. I'll probably just keep hunting with front stuffers, though. :D They're neat. I look on them as .50-90 Sharps without the case, especially my CVA Wolf with scope mounted. It's kinda too modern to play Daniel Boone with. :D

RevGeo
November 25, 2012, 11:09 AM
Ankeny,
Why doesn't your outfit put minimum caliber or chambering limits on it's customer's choice of weapon? Probably lose a bunch of 'em, I imagine. Maybe the various fish and game depts. that are looking at legalizing .22CF cartridges have the same problem. .22CF guns are mighty popular these days and lots of deer are killed with them.
I know that here in Idaho (any center fire is legal) there is a lot of worry in the F&G about the recent lack of non-resident tags being purchased.
That has nothing to do with caliber restrictions but F&G still needs the $$.
How about proof of shooting ability with the chosen gun? Some outfitters refuse to book older or out of shape hunters for strenuous sheep hunts etc.
Perhaps having the client shoot a pie pan at 100 yards with his chosen gun? Offhand...

ricebasher302
November 25, 2012, 11:49 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with compensating for imperfect shots. Allowing yourself a margin of error in case things don't go perfectly. I've killed elk with well-placed lung shots with a .243 Win, but I don't believe this caliber provides any room for error. Last year, I took a bull elk at a sharp quartering away angle with a 350 gr bullet from a .45-70. The elk never took a step. I would not have even attempted the shot with a .243. I knew the 350 grain bullet would penetrate to the offside lung. I can say with nearly 100 percent certainty that a light bullet would not have achieved that kind of penetration and would have resulted in a wounded elk.

I would not feel undergunned with a .270, but I am a proponent of premium (or just really heavy) bullets on large game such elk, moose and bear. Most any game bullet is adequate for deer.

My experience with many (not all) hunters using very large magnums is that they expect instant kills. Just this season, one of my elk hunting party found a freshly killed mule deer buck. After several hours, he happened upon the guy responsible. The guy said he had shot but missed because the deer ran off unharmed. He had shot the buck in the lungs with a .30-378 Wby. Mag. and assumed it would have dropped where it stood. In my mind this kind of irresponsibility is unacceptable, and frequently goes hand-in-hand with ultra large magnums.

However, if an experienced, responsible hunter chooses to use one, that is okay by me.

X-Rap
November 25, 2012, 01:25 PM
So many of these threads seem to claim some almost inherent inaccuracy and poor hunting ability that accompanies a larger caliber cartridge so I try to pay them little mind. There also is some explosive, meat ruining implication that I have found to be absolutely false.
I have some news for those that let big guns get under your skin, I'll go out on a limb and say Most commited shooters and hunters who use a magnum also own a few guns that shoot the smaller rounds and can probably shoot them quite well.

Onward Allusion
November 25, 2012, 01:49 PM
I have read theories that millennia of being preyed upon by alpha predators (lions, leopards, hyenas, etc.) have made the prey animals more resistant to shock through evolution.

Through tens of thousands of years perhaps, but the last 50 years???

splattergun
November 25, 2012, 01:49 PM
As a western hunter, I can't help but chuckle at the easterners' view that anything over 100 yards is 'extreme' and requires something in the category of a 40mm recoilless rifle. :rolleyes:

I have never been dissappointed in the performance of my .30-06, having taken a few mule deer around 450 yards, and a couple elk around 350 yards. All 1 shot kills that fell within 25 yards. I have used a 7mm-08 for muleys out to 300 yards, same result. Nothing wrong with that cartridge.

The only way I can see myself needing a magnum for what/where I hunt would be for longer ranges, where a 7mm mag, with its better ballistics and bullet BC would shine. But that's not gonna happen for me in the foreseeable future.

BoilerUP
November 25, 2012, 02:27 PM
I'm a recoil sissy.

Nearly everybody I know hunts with magnums...7RM is far and away the most popular with a couple other guys using 300WSMs. And this is in Kentucky, in hardwoods, where the "long shot" is 100yd unless you happen to be hunting a field.

I hunt with a 260 Remington, as it kills deer just as dead with WAY less recoil than any magnum.

After using my 223AI to good effect yesterday (as my brother was using the 260), I might start hunting more with it...the 80gr A-Max killed deer just as dead as my 260 or other hunters' magnums.

I'm proficient enough shooting the "little" 223AI that I'd have no problem slipping that 80gr A-Max into that beautiful mulie's heart at 300yd...or into its lower neck/spine junction for a bang/flop DRT.

Shot placement of a quality bullet is way, WAY more important than bullet diameter or weight.

Did I mention I'm a recoil sissy?

DM~
November 25, 2012, 07:23 PM
If you ever compared the cases, you realize that the .240 Weatherby is really a .243-06.
At the ridiculously high prices for empty .240 Weatherby cases it would make sense to start out with a wildcat .243-06 if that's the cartridge that tickles your fancy.

Yes, of course i know that. Did you know thar .240 cases can be made from 30-06???

At the time i had Parker make up and install the bbl. for me, i didn't care what the cases cost as i was a gun dealer and bought a BUNCH of them for cost. I'm still using those same cases.

"IF" i was starting over today, with the same needs, i'd build the same rifle, only chambered for 6mm Remington instead. I do like my .240 though as over the years it's done quite well for me, and my great nephue took HIS first deer with it about a week ago,

http://www.fototime.com/78264D7E81ED8AC/standard.jpg

But that's NOT the first deer the .240 took! lol

DM

Patocazador
November 25, 2012, 09:15 PM
Yes, of course i know that. Did you know thar .240 cases can be made from 30-06???

At the time i had Parker make up and install the bbl. for me, i didn't care what the cases cost as i was a gun dealer and bought a BUNCH of them for cost. I'm still using those same cases.

"IF" i was starting over today, with the same needs, i'd build the same rifle, only chambered for 6mm Remington instead. I do like my .240 though as over the years it's done quite well for me, and my great nephue took HIS first deer with it about a week ago,

http://www.fototime.com/78264D7E81ED8AC/standard.jpg

But that's NOT the first deer the .240 took! lol

DM
I have had a .240 Weatherby Mark V for over 40 years. I killed my biggest antelope with it back in 1975, 15 4/8", at over 400 yards. I like the cartridge but only had 80 cases for it. I switched to a .257 Roberts Ackley Imp. 20 years ago. I never regretted it.

Congrats to your nephew. Nice deer.

ricebasher302
November 25, 2012, 10:11 PM
There also is some explosive, meat ruining implication that I have found to be absolutely false.

In my experience, speed is what causes explosive damage. This is exacerbated if the bullet used is too fragile for the application. I've seen some pretty nasty carnage from .243's, .25-06's, .270's and 7mm RM's. While many magnums are fast, their large size is not necessarily so much of a factor.

I hate processing meat-shot critters and have yet to encounter a situation where I absolutely needed to anchor an animal with a shoulder shot. I've had great luck with neck shots and head shots as long as you're able to make the shot cleanly. Blowing a jaw off is NOT something I wanna do, but if I wanted an animal to drop where is stood, I'd be thinking neck/head before shoulder.

DeepSouth
November 25, 2012, 10:30 PM
Personally I like the big calibers, don't really know why but I do. So as a result I tend to hunt with them. That said there not "needed" for anything in AL, I've killed more with a 243 than anything else. But nowadays I hunt less (just take the kids) and carry a bigger gun.

Lloyd Smale
November 26, 2012, 10:34 AM
Quote:
I find the anti magnum crowd more annoying than the have to have a magnum crowd myself.
amen to that

jimmyraythomason
November 26, 2012, 10:46 AM
I find the anti magnum crowd more annoying than the have to have a magnum crowd myself. That is subject to one's own perspective. I take the other position as I believe the magnumites are more annoying(at least to me). Magnums for long range shots?-Yes. For dangerous game?-Absolutely! For whitetail deer?-What is the point?

RetiredUSNChief
November 26, 2012, 11:13 AM
Off hand, I'd say the main reason behind this is the never ending quest to eek out a little bit more performance, to improve on one aspect or another of an existing cartridge, to develop a new cartridge, to stroke an ego, to suit a specific purpose, or any number of other such factors.

I don't think that these new "big guns" are really that much of a big deal, with respect to their relative performance compared to the ones you've mentioned. Rather, I look at it like this: it simply broadens the market and gives us more choices to choose from, based on whatever we perceive our own needs and wants to be.

You will certainly get no argument from me that you can take anything you want with a 270 or 30-06.

The ultimate bottom line question that needs to be asked is "Do the existing 'older' rifles/cartridges do the job you need them to do?"

If the answer to that is "yes", then who really cares if someone else out there thinks some other rifle/cartridge combination is better, newer or not? Arguing that is like arguing what round is 'best' for personal protection...everybody's got an opinion, but if they all get the job done, it's really a moot point.

Besides...for the types of rifles/cartridges you're talking about, it's far more about shot placement than anything else. From the perspective of large game, being hit with a 30-06 or a new-fangled "magnum" makes no difference.

:):)

jmr40
November 26, 2012, 11:24 AM
Magnums for long range shots?-Yes. For dangerous game?-Absolutely! For whitetail deer?-What is the point?

For the guy who wants to only buy only 1 gun to hunt world wide a 300 mag makes a lot of sense. There are only 2-3 game animals on the planet that it is unsuited for, a few that it would be borderline on, but smaller guns have killed everything on the planet.

With the wide selection of bullets you can choose one that will punch through very large animals at close to moderate range or choose another to shoot flat enough with enough energy for large game such as elk at quite long range.

Recoil is manageable, actually quite a bit less than some non-magnum rounds often praised by the "anti-magnum crowd". And it can always be loaded down to 308 power and recoil levels for whitetails at close range.

Andrew Leigh
November 26, 2012, 11:27 AM
As a relatively new hunter and rifle owner (2 years now) I see owning a rifle as one based on a need to do a job. Your first rifle, and if indeed this will be your only rifle, must be seen as a tool. For me it is a tool I need to use on the African continent.

So my first rifle ended up being the "adjustable wrench", the tool that will fit a variety of situations. In my case it was the 30-06 as this would allow me to shoot from Springbuck (huge overkill) through to Eland (where good bullets and premium shot placement) would be imperative for ethical kills. And as a handloader would provide opportunity for tailoring loads. This calibre would be fine for 95% of all my hunts, as would other calibre's it must be said. (.270, 300 Win mag, 7mm Rem Mag, 7X57 etc.). It just so happens that with the limited experience I had at the time of purchase that this was the calibre I selected, it was a close call between the .270, 7X57, .308 and the 30-06.

As time has progressed I have found that I am actually over gunned for the smaller antelope / buck species and that a smaller calibre would be better suited to the job of hunting Springbuck, Impala and Blesbuck. Plus my grandbuddies want to come shooting so the next tool for the toolbox was a 6.5X55mm. Again this could have been any of a number of calibres a .243, 6mm, .250. I just happened to fancy the classic 6.5mm and also being a hand loader this was a great calibre and I could exploit many possibilities while downloading for the grandbuddies until they were ready for full loads.

Back to the OP. I also did not get the big guns thing but now I find myslef wanting a more specialist calibre on the upper end, specifically to take Eland with more confidence so calibres like the classic 9.3, .375 and perhaps the .300 Win Mag or the .338 may also be up for consideration.

If I was afforded opportunity to hunt in Namibia or the central parts of South Africa where is is flat and long range shot are required then I would consider a 7mm Rem Mag, a .300 Win Mag etc.

For me it is about fitness for purpose, for a job at hand. It is nice to have a toolbox full of tools so to speak. Varmint rifle, small antelope, large antelope, short range deer rifle, scatter gun etc etc.

My next purchase will probably be a .375 H&H not for any testosterone based reason but simply as part of the process of equipping my tool box with the tools I require.

Hope my odd analogy makes sense.

Art Eatman
November 26, 2012, 11:42 AM
Andrew, your reasoning is purpose-driven, which to me makes sense. What most of us old-timers joke about with the "magnum-itis" has to do with guys using magnums where the hunt is for whitetail deer which dress out around 100 pounds and are shot at 50 to 75 yards.

And too many of them, apparently, take a cross-body shoulder shot and then complain about ruining meat. :D

Jason_W
November 26, 2012, 11:49 AM
And too many of them, apparently, take a cross-body shoulder shot and then complain about ruining meat.

In places where you're lucky to see one legal deer in a season, some ruined meat is better than no deer at all.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of taking absolutely stupid shots, but if you wait for the perfect angle, you'll likely have the same level deer hunting success that I do.

Taurus 617 CCW
November 26, 2012, 12:02 PM
I currently use a 30-06 and have never considered moving to a larger cartridge beyond that. I have actually considered moving down to a .44 magnum lever action or a .243 Win. for deer.

nickn10
November 26, 2012, 02:20 PM
I understand the argument over what caliber it takes to kill an animal cleanly. I started hunting in 1965 here in Colorado. An argument/discussion that I have not seen here is the changing conditions as it affects caliber choices, ie. length of hunting season, hunting pressure due to more hunters in the area, different seasons for archery, muzzle loaders, early and late rifle etc. Nowdays, here in Colorado, deer and elk are hunted from late Aug to late Dec. The pressure on the animals have made them both extremely wary and nocturnal. You must apply for and draw, if you are lucky, for a season and animal which may be for the following year. Will it be hot and dry or cold and wet or even during a blizzard? Usually the season drawn will be a week or ten days long at most, you usually have a job and can only hunt a few of those days or if out of state you have spent a ton of money hoping for a once in a lifetime hunt. All those conditions must be considered, add to that the greedy Div of wildlife pumping more hunters into the area and success becomes an iffy proposition. You needed assurance, that if an opportunity presented itself, you couldn't afford to pass up a shot due to distance or an inadequate bullet. ASSUMMING YOU COULD ACCURATELY PLACE THAT BULLET INTO A VITAL SPOT! Magnums, 7mm, .30win and .338win provided an edge. I hunted from 1964 to 1995, since 1980 the conditions for both the hunter and the hunted have changed for the worse. I remember when Elk grazed openly during the day and antelope herds were much bigger, big Muleys, 30 inchers, were not a rare occurrence if you were willing to work for it.
All that being said I started with a .270 thanks to Jack O'Connor and it worked well until the mid 80's. Then the outdoor magazines started touting the great western Elk experience, up until that time most of my hunting buddies ignored Elk, they were too heavy to carry out, and who the heck can eat all that meat! From 1985-1995 I settled on a 338 win for Elk and a 7mm for deer. Nowdays hunting times are short, competition is high and the animals are harrassed, a big caliber is insurance worth carrying if Elk is the quarry. Today I turned 71 and those hills and mountains have gotten too hard for me, but the memories are sweet. BTW I still have a .22lr, a mini 14 .223 and a .308 just in case. Good hunting to you all.

splattergun
November 26, 2012, 09:09 PM
As a relatively new hunter and rifle owner (2 years now) I see owning a rifle as one based on a need to do a job. Your first rifle, and if indeed this will be your only rifle, must be seen as a tool. For me it is a tool I need to use on the African continent.

So my first rifle ended up being the "adjustable wrench", the tool that will fit a variety of situations. In my case it was the 30-06 as this would allow me to shoot from Springbuck (huge overkill) through to Eland (where good bullets and premium shot placement) would be imperative for ethical kills. And as a handloader would provide opportunity for tailoring loads. This calibre would be fine for 95% of all my hunts, as would other calibre's it must be said. (.270, 300 Win mag, 7mm Rem Mag, 7X57 etc.). It just so happens that with the limited experience I had at the time of purchase that this was the calibre I selected, it was a close call between the .270, 7X57, .308 and the 30-06.

As time has progressed I have found that I am actually over gunned for the smaller antelope / buck species and that a smaller calibre would be better suited to the job of hunting Springbuck, Impala and Blesbuck. Plus my grandbuddies want to come shooting so the next tool for the toolbox was a 6.5X55mm. Again this could have been any of a number of calibres a .243, 6mm, .250. I just happened to fancy the classic 6.5mm and also being a hand loader this was a great calibre and I could exploit many possibilities while downloading for the grandbuddies until they were ready for full loads.

Back to the OP. I also did not get the big guns thing but now I find myslef wanting a more specialist calibre on the upper end, specifically to take Eland with more confidence so calibres like the classic 9.3, .375 and perhaps the .300 Win Mag or the .338 may also be up for consideration.

If I was afforded opportunity to hunt in Namibia or the central parts of South Africa where is is flat and long range shot are required then I would consider a 7mm Rem Mag, a .300 Win Mag etc.

For me it is about fitness for purpose, for a job at hand. It is nice to have a toolbox full of tools so to speak. Varmint rifle, small antelope, large antelope, short range deer rifle, scatter gun etc etc.

My next purchase will probably be a .375 H&H not for any testosterone based reason but simply as part of the process of equipping my tool box with the tools I require.

Hope my odd analogy makes sense.
You'vbe made perfect sense Andrew.

TNboy
November 30, 2012, 02:32 PM
I'm a lot more concerned with how competent someone is with a rifle as opposed to what rifle they are using. All I hunt is whitetail and hogs and my .270 does just fine. When I bought it at 16 I bought it with the intent of keeping it for life. I have no problem with a guy using a .223 as long as he makes a clean kill. Although a bigger gun must be used judiciously in order to avoid messing up a bunch of meat, used properly I see nothing wrong with it.

Jason_W
November 30, 2012, 04:14 PM
Is rapid bullet fragmentation what causes most meat destruction?

hq
November 30, 2012, 04:40 PM
Hydrodynamic (which is often erroneously called hydrostatic) shock does. It's a function of bullet speed, weight and diameter, speed being the dominant factor.

22-rimfire
December 1, 2012, 11:11 AM
When I was younger, I was over confident as to how good of a shot I was and generally leaned toward smaller centerfire calibers for deer (243 win was my choice) and even comfortable with a 222/223 with a proper bullet. More foreward a few years and I started using a 270 Win for deer (as opposed to 30-06 or 308) and I'm very comfortable with that choice.

I say use enough gun. But a bad hit with a smaller caliber is just as bad as one with a bigger caliber. But the more powerful caliber puts them down quicker as a general rule. I think that is important.

I haven't hunted elk or moose. Would love to. I would probably move up to 7mm or 300 win mag for them due to distance considerations over the 270. Frankly I would do some serious thinking about it before buying. I might even start a thread for the fun of it, but really don't need someone else's help for that. It would be a great excuse to buy another rifle and get comfortable with the rifle and caliber. :) But I am confident the 270 would be sufficient as long as I did my part and kept the range within my capabilities.

45crittergitter
December 1, 2012, 04:27 PM
I guess if you don't get it, you're just not a gun guy. :rolleyes:

Bushpilot
December 2, 2012, 11:40 AM
I used to have a "thing" for Magnum rifles, especially the 300WM and 375HH, although I really didn't have a "need" for anything bigger than a 30/06, if that. Although I could handle their recoil I still really didn't enjoy shooting them. Now as I've gotten a little older I have started to appreciate lighter rifles. There is a quality to having enough gun without the burdens associated with too much gun (weight, recoil, meat damage, barrel life, barrel and receiver length, muzzle blast, ammo cost). The .243, .257, 6.5x55, 7x57, .270 and similar rifles now catch my eye more than Magnums do. Plus, what hunting experience I do have has confirmed for me the old adage " it's not what you hit them with, it's where you hit them that counts.”

BoilerUP
December 2, 2012, 11:42 AM
Shot placement ALWAYS matters more than bullet diameter and velocity...

Art Eatman
December 2, 2012, 12:14 PM
Jason_W, the deal is to not hit in the eating part of a critter. Sure, fragmentation makes a mess, so just be picky about where you want to hit. Neck; heart/lung...

Manny
December 2, 2012, 01:46 PM
I live in Ohio where you can't use centerfire rifles for deer, handgun, muzzleloader or shotgun slug only. Shooting lightweight slug guns (my NEF weighs less than 6 lbs) makes even some of the heavy hitting big bores seem not too bad in recoil and mighty small in caliber in comparison. Given these restrictions any use of a hunting rifle is an out of state hunt. So before I got a rifle, I thought first what I would most want to hunt and came up with a list of my top 3 hunts:

-Black Bear
-Large trophy hog
-Bison

All tough targets that could justify a heavy hitter. Yeah, a .30-06 could do it all, but I wanted something a bit bigger. My first try at a hunting rifle was a Browning M71 repro in .348. I found it not bad on recoil and fun to shoot and it seemed like a good match for the game I wanted to hunt. Found I didn't particularly care for lever actions, the ammo was hard to find and I didn't like not being able to scope it, so sold it. While browsing Cabela's one day I found a smoking deal deal on a Ruger M77 Hawkeye All Weather in .338 Winmag. Though I've yet to use it on game I know that I'm set for any possible hunt I can take in north america from deer to brown bear. It's the only rifle I own outside of .22's & an AR in 5.56. I only wanted one rifle and wanted one that would cover any contingency. With the .338 WM I believe I found it, though I will confess to harboring a longing for a 9.3x62. If Ruger offered it in an All Weather I'd be mighty tempted to make the change.

H&Hhunter
December 2, 2012, 04:52 PM
The 9.3X62 is a cool round. But for all around North American hunting the .338 is more versatile and more useful round as it has about the same killing ability and penetration as a 9.3 yet it offers the flat trajectory often very useful out west. It's kind of like a longer range 9.3.

T.R.
December 3, 2012, 07:52 AM
A lot has to do with marketing strategies to encourage hunters to buy new rifles.

TR

.333 Nitro Express
December 3, 2012, 10:33 PM
The original question never quite addressed what TXCookie meant by "big guns."

If he means a magnum version of a 25 to 30 caliber cartridge it's one thing. If he means a medium or big bore it's another thing. If he means a magnum version of a medium or big bore it's yet something else.

Let me address the second option, because it's the one I espouse--using a medium (or big bore). A medium bore throwing a heavy-for-caliber bullet at moderately fast velocities gives me enough insurance for any shot I want to take, on any kind of game that walks in North America. No matter what the angle the animal presents to me, I can reach the vitals, because of the superior penetration that such a combination gives me. I include in this group calibers like the .375 H&H (a "magnum" in name, but by 1912 standards), the 9.3x62, some of the .33s, etc.

This concept is particularly useful to me as an East Coaster. When I decide to sink the kind of money to hunt elk out West, I don't want to use a rifle that may cause me to pass up shots or--worse--to risk wounding an animal because of the angle it presents to me. For instance, a .375 H&H throwing a 300gr bullet at 2400 f/s will not only reach out as far as I'm comfortable shooting, but penetrate to the vitals every time. It has never once let me down, and the velocity is still contained enough that no modern bullet will break up.

I know that a 300 H&H with a 200-grainer will pretty much do the same thing, but I've never tried it.

(BTW, I find it not coincidental that some of the native Western hunters on this board do not think a medium bore is needed--they live there, and they see elk all the time. On the other hand, when you're there for just a few days at a few hundred dollars per, don't know the lay of the land and must take what the Gods give you, every little bit of difference has an impact.)

Although I've never been a fan of magnum small bores, I see the point of having one for those who want a flatter shooting rifle. I don't take shots longer than 200 yards--because taking game other than varmints beyond that distance doesn't do it for me. I don't have an ethical thing against it, just a matter of personal preference. I like to get close--that, to me, is the most fun part of hunting. But for those who enjoy the thrill of a longer shot or who hunt in wide open terrain, eliminating those extra inches in bullet drop with a magnum makes perfect sense, and I understand it.

Where I am totally at a loss is for the need of magnum versions of big bores--the .416 Wby or the .460 Wby and the likes--especially for North America. I guess they combine the advantages of the other two categories, but in all my years hunting and knowing hunters of all stripes, I have never encountered a single person who has championed the need for such power. I'm sure these people exist--or else, those calibers wouldn't have the following they do.

Ultimately, to each his own. If you dig it, do it--as long as you don't bite off more than you can chew recoil-wise, otherwise your flinching will cause you to wound animals, which is among the things that a true sportsman should try to avoid at all costs. But there is no denying that caliber choice is very personal. The no-frills, pragmatic All-American appeal of a .270 or a .30-06, the exotic appeal of an African cartridge or the high-tech appeal of the latest magnum or the nostalgic appeal of an old European number speak to all of us in some way. Again, to each his own--as long as you handle your choice proficiently.

hq
December 4, 2012, 05:20 AM
We've seen very good points throughout this thread.

Marketing has been a major factor lately. Fast, flat-shooting magnums have become mainstream; they're convenient as far as minimal bullet drop at longer distances is concerned, but also carry a penalty of destroying more meat with increased bullet speed. Not a huge difference compared to fast, smaller calibers like .243 or .25-06, only the bullet is a bit larger.

I'd like to repeat the fact that has been repeated a number of times: the caliber choice is personal and what really matters is the hunter's ability to shoot his rifle with sufficient accuracy and consistency. Larger calibers are a little more forgiving as far as bullet placement is concerned and in some cases they're needed for penetration, be it because of physiological factors of the game animal or the angle where a shot can be taken. If the hunter has no problem with stout recoil and costs of shooting a magnum caliber, it's not anyone else's business.

Questioning other people's choices based on need has a distinct socialistic flavor. On the other hand, so does questioning the adequacy of using smaller calibers. These days people are so used to having their say in anything and everything (thanks, Internet) that minding their own business and respecting other people's choices is underrated. Conversation and debate are curious things; only well-founded opinions have real value. Many people who are too concentrated in only voicing theirs don't seem to understand that.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to hunt with the flattest-shooting mega magnum he can find and feels more comfortable taking a whitetail at 30 yards with one, please, go ahead, it's none of my business. The end result is the same, venison in the freezer and a trophy mount on the wall, only difference being the hunter's personal choice of firearm. Which I respect. The same way I respect that others choose to do the same thing with the lowest powered legal caliber they can find.

Even though I've taken impalas with a .45-70 at 150...225 yards, I also understand that many people rather not learn the rainbow trajectory of an ancient caliber and want as long point blank range as possible. It definitely makes longer shots easier and reduce the consequences of miscalculation. Even if these hunters never actually shot that far, it can be a valuable confidence booster. Again, it's freedom of choice. If it makes you feel good, it's justified. Same thing with large calibers. It's not my (or anyone else's) business to tell people what they need and don't need and there's nothing unethical in choosing a much larger caliber than necessary.

Questioning choices is good fun, as we've seen throughout this thread, but using vague generalizations like claims about people's lack of skill based on their choice of equipment is almost an insult to readers' intelligence. This is The High Road, after all.

ZeroJunk
December 4, 2012, 08:14 AM
We've seen very good points throughout this thread.

Marketing has been a major factor lately. Fast, flat-shooting magnums have become mainstream; they're convenient as far as minimal bullet drop at longer distances is concerned, but also carry a penalty of destroying more meat with increased bullet speed. Not a huge difference compared to fast, smaller calibers like .243 or .25-06, only the bullet is a bit larger.

I'd like to repeat the fact that has been repeated a number of times: the caliber choice is personal and what really matters is the hunter's ability to shoot his rifle with sufficient accuracy and consistency. Larger calibers are a little more forgiving as far as bullet placement is concerned and in some cases they're needed for penetration, be it because of physiological factors of the game animal or the angle where a shot can be taken. If the hunter has no problem with stout recoil and costs of shooting a magnum caliber, it's not anyone else's business.

Questioning other people's choices based on need has a distinct socialistic flavor. On the other hand, so does questioning the adequacy of using smaller calibers. These days people are so used to having their say in anything and everything (thanks, Internet) that minding their own business and respecting other people's choices is underrated. Conversation and debate are curious things; only well-founded opinions have real value. Many people who are too concentrated in only voicing theirs don't seem to understand that.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to hunt with the flattest-shooting mega magnum he can find and feels more comfortable taking a whitetail at 30 yards with one, please, go ahead, it's none of my business. The end result is the same, venison in the freezer and a trophy mount on the wall, only difference being the hunter's personal choice of firearm. Which I respect. The same way I respect that others choose to do the same thing with the lowest powered legal caliber they can find.

Even though I've taken impalas with a .45-70 at 150...225 yards, I also understand that many people rather not learn the rainbow trajectory of an ancient caliber and want as long point blank range as possible. It definitely makes longer shots easier and reduce the consequences of miscalculation. Even if these hunters never actually shot that far, it can be a valuable confidence booster. Again, it's freedom of choice. If it makes you feel good, it's justified. Same thing with large calibers. It's not my (or anyone else's) business to tell people what they need and don't need and there's nothing unethical in choosing a much larger caliber than necessary.

Questioning choices is good fun, as we've seen throughout this thread, but using vague generalizations like claims about people's lack of skill based on their choice of equipment is almost an insult to readers' intelligence. This is The High Road, after all.
I'll quote it just because it is great.

Lloyd Smale
December 5, 2012, 06:22 AM
some of what i dont understand from you anti mag guys is why alot of you can justify the 22250 over the 223 for varmit hunting due to the fact its easier to make long range accurate hits on animals but you will contend that a 7mag doesnt make the same improvement over a 7-08. Dont know of to many serious varmit hunters that consider a 223 for 400 yard shooting and feel that when the ranges get over 300 yards the same consideration should be made for big game rifles. Sure your shooting at a bigger target but with a varmit your not looking at a hit in the vitals just a hit and you dont feel as bad about one running off wounded. I shoot alot of deer every year and like any advantage i can find to kill them as cleanly as possible.

Ankeny
December 5, 2012, 10:13 AM
Questioning other people's choices based on need has a distinct socialistic flavor. On the other hand, so does questioning the adequacy of using smaller calibers. Unfortunately, government ownership in caliber selection is a necessity.

paintballdude902
December 5, 2012, 06:21 PM
im with jack o'connor there is nothin in north america that cant be taken with a .700 NE..............

i do step up to a 40mm bofors API for africa....

WYcoyote
December 5, 2012, 07:50 PM
hq,
Well put sir.

Todd1700
December 6, 2012, 05:14 AM
What most of us old-timers joke about with the "magnum-itis" has to do with guys using magnums where the hunt is for whitetail deer which dress out around 100 pounds and are shot at 50 to 75 yards.


Ditto. If you want to pay 55 dollars a box for ammo to shoot 140 pound deer 70 yards away with a 300 win mag then knock yourself out. But I reserve the right to think you are using way more gun than you need for that scenario. And I firmly believe you are getting "NO" benefits over a standard caliber at that distance on that size game animal that warrant the increased cost of the ammo and the extra recoil. A 308 will make the same wound channel through that animal at that distance and drop it just as quickly. And it will do it with ammo that costs 30% less and without detaching your retina.

You can drive roofing tacks with a 10 lb sledge hammer if you want. But that sure as hell isn't what a 10 pound sledge hammer was intended for. Pardon me for noticing. LOL!

H&Hhunter
December 6, 2012, 10:12 AM
You can drive roofing tacks with a 10 lb sledge hammer if you want. But that sure as hell isn't what a 10 pound sledge hammer was intended for.

Agreed, then we have the opposite where a guy tries to drive a spike though a 6x6 plank with a ball peen hammer and claim it's all about shot placement.

.333 Nitro Express
December 6, 2012, 04:21 PM
You can drive roofing tacks with a 10 lb sledge hammer if you want. But that sure as hell isn't what a 10 pound sledge hammer was intended for. Pardon me for noticing. LOL!

True. But...

Unless we're talking about a bullet that will break up because of excessive velocity (fortunately rare these days), or one whose overpenetration risks wounding other animals (a situation that it is the hunter's responsibility to actively avoid, regardless of bullet or caliber used)--I don't understand the concept of "overkill" in this regard.

Killing cleanly means causing the vitals to shut down quickly and humanely, not doing so with as much mechanical effort/result efficiency as possible.

Take it from someone who does not own, does no plan on owning and has never owned a rifle chambered in a modern magnum. ;)

H&Hhunter
December 6, 2012, 06:12 PM
Take it from someone who does not own, does no plan on owning and has never owned a rifle chambered in a modern magnum.

There is so much in a word here. Please define "modern" magnum?:D

.333 Nitro Express
December 6, 2012, 08:21 PM
Really? Do I have to define it--for "H&H" Hunter? :cool:

Of course, anything introduced after 1925. If it wasn't first employed by hunters who addressed each other with "I say, old chap..." it is ultra-modern to me.

A great part of my interest in rifles is historical, and I guess I have never been able to look even at cartridges as mere tools--the more their historical significance, the more they attract me, as long as they still do the job. Then, there is the fact that I have lived through the Lazzeroni, RUM, RSAUM, WSM, WSSM marketing feeding frenzy when I was a rifle product manager, and that took any remaining allure away from the latest magnum cartridges.

Nothing against them, just not my thing. :)

WYcoyote
December 6, 2012, 08:28 PM
mmm... my .300 H&H was modern in 1925.

.333 Nitro Express
December 6, 2012, 08:39 PM
:neener:

H&Hhunter
December 7, 2012, 01:17 AM
Really? Do I have to define it--for "H&H" Hunter?

Of course, anything introduced after 1925. If it wasn't first employed by hunters who addressed each other with "I say, old chap..." it is ultra-modern to me.


I am currently using these new fangled "Nitro Express" rounds which from your internet handle I can see that you also have discovered this modern miracle. Shock of all shocks they no longer use Black powder OR nitro cellulose! They are using an brand new type of powder now called "smoke less". I have one in .47 Caliber only because they've recently made the .45 caliber Nitro Express illegal with the uprising in the Sudan and all. Amazing stuff really.

I also have a new type design rifle. This one is truly mind blowing it is called a .404 Jefferys now grasp this IF you can...It is a .423 or a .419 caliber depending on the manufacture that holds FOUR rounds thus the .40 oh 4, can you imagine!

Last but not least I have been using a new caliber called an H&H Magnum chambered in .375 caliber it drives three different weight bullets a 230 gr, 270 gr or a 300 gr full patch or exposed lead bullet at blistering speeds. John Taylor reports that the 270 gr bullets flies with such incredible speed and momentum that he recently shot through 7 eland bulls which were lined up with ONE bullet!

Shocking I'm sure, but these modern miracles of science never fail to amaze! Good hunting ole boy!

H&Hhunter.

;)

.333 Nitro Express
December 7, 2012, 09:18 AM
Coffee... nose... snorting... barely missing my computer keyboard...

That was priceless, H&H! ;)

ZeroJunk
December 7, 2012, 10:54 AM
There is no fundamental difference bewteen cartridges. So, you make it shorter, longer, fatter, or slimmer and us old farts don't like it because it is shorter, longer, fatter, or slimmer. Or worse, we don't like it because of the name they put on it.

Who cares. Go buy one you like and shoot something.

razorback2003
December 9, 2012, 10:18 PM
You can kill just about anything but dangerous bears with a 243 or 30-30 if your range is right. People kill stuff with bows and crossbows, why wouldn't a 243 work even on a moose as long as you are a good shooter. I think both the 260 and 7mm 08 are great do all deer and up cartridges, except dangerous bears.

I'd take someone proficient any day with a 22 and a 243 over someone with a 300 Win Mag who might be scared of the rifle and shoot once a year.

.333 Nitro Express
December 9, 2012, 11:04 PM
Razorback--

True, but the opposite also holds, since we're talking hyperbolic what-if scenarios. I'd take someone who handloads for and shoots his .375 H&H every month, knows it like the back of his hand (and still does not trust himself to shoot from far away) rather than some recoil-shy city slicker who reads too many gun magazines, shoots once in a blue moon and thinks that shooting game at 400 yards with a .223 is the height of sportsmanship.

7mmstalker
December 10, 2012, 02:08 AM
I love my 30-06, got a 270 a few years ago, wow, that one really shoots good, and kills like lightning! My 243 is a joy to shoot and quite accurate with nearly any load. Of course, my all time favorite 7mm, currently have a Rem.mag, and a 7x57, both straight shooters, haven't hunted with them yet, but either one will work for WA state big-game.
I'm starting to forget the recoil of the 338Win mag that was sold several years back, thinkin' a 338-06 would be just right! No desire to have another 416, recoil was all that I remember about shooting that rifle!
Why have bigger calibers? I dunno, fun, curiosity, "collecting". Why not?

hq
December 10, 2012, 05:04 AM
We're getting back to the point I made earlier. It's perfectly possible to kill a 1500lb moose at a long distance with a .22lr by shooting through the eye, but hunting being a very unpredictable sport, I prefer far more margin of error. When I was much younger I still had an infinite confidence in my abilities, carried a .243 and sneered at anyone who chose a larger caliber than "necessary".

Then I grew up. It kind of happens naturally when there just happens to be one tiny, bullet-diverting tree branch between you and the game animal, you take the shot with utter confidence and spend next seven hours tracking a wounded animal that took off and ran a couple of miles. Anyone who claims that he can place a bullet with perfect accuracy in a hunting situation every time is not a hunter but a genuine real-life magician, or just full of... well, you know what. Margin of error is for the rest of us.

Arkansas Paul
December 10, 2012, 08:13 AM
You can kill just about anything but dangerous bears with a 243 or 30-30 if your range is right.

And we all know that just because you can, automatically means that you should. :rolleyes:

.333 Nitro Express
December 10, 2012, 10:09 AM
HQ--bingo.

+1

jimmyraythomason
December 10, 2012, 02:00 PM
When I was much younger I still had an infinite confidence in my abilities, carried a .243 and sneered at anyone who chose a larger caliber than "necessary".
Well I'm a couple months shy of 60 years lod and have been hunting since my dad let me tag along at age three while he squirrel hunted. so I'm about as grown up as I will ever be and though I don't sneer at another's choice of shootin' iron I do believe that if a hunter can't kill anything short of the big bears with a .243 on a regular basis he might want to take up bowling instead. Bullet deflection can happen to any projectile resulting in a miss or a cripple regardless of caliber. If that is a major concern maybe a better choice is a 12ga with slugs.

pikid89
December 10, 2012, 02:20 PM
In florida, we hunt our not so big deer and pretty big tough hogs with .223s .22-250s and .22 WMRs pretty regular...i even know a couple guys that hunt hogs exclusively with .22 Hornets and .204 Rugers

In all my days of hunting (almost 15 year...im only 23) Ive never met anyone personally that hunts in Florida with anything larger than .30-06, save the one oddball that hunts with us with a 7 mag...and doesnt leave much as far as venison shoulders after the kill

Not long ago I was told I dont know much about hog hunting in a thread on here when I said I preferred .22 mag for hogs...Ive killed many dozens of hogs, and only saw 1 that wasnt a one shot drop from the 22 magnum
...then again, we try not to make a habit of pissing them off first...never understood the point of getting them all riled up with dogs and harder to kill when you could just nail him behind the ear from 60 yards away...

hq
December 10, 2012, 02:43 PM
if a hunter can't kill anything short of the big bears with a .243 on a regular basis he might want to take up bowling instead.

Someone might say the same thing about the .22lr and eye-shot, in which case we'll see an abundance of classified ads, "WTT: Hunting rifle, .243, trade for a bowling ball".

If you enjoyed reading about "I dont get the big GUNS?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!