Does Anyone REALLY Hunt With 300 Win Mag?

Didn't say it was overkill. Said it was unneccessary. And I'm a pretty big fan of the '06 myself. Frankly, I'm a big fan of the .300 H&H as well. I just don't kid myself that I have to have one for deer or elk. The simple fact is there's very little game in America that needs more than a 7X57, .25-06, 6.5, etc.

So a question: if there's no ego involved in the magnums, why is it that the mere suggestion that they aren't neccessary enough to set off a certain kind of magnum owner? It's not as though I'm saying magnums are bad, or shouldn't be used, or are "overkill" or anything. My harshest criticism is that the increased noise and recoil requires an effort to master and that too many "recreational" hunters don't bother. So why does that get the "magnum men" all uptight?

Said it was unneccessary

Click to expand...

So by that same logic I should hunt with the bare minimum required by state law. If I could find a cheap .22 hornet I would consider it. Though I do have to admit I nailed a nice doe last season with my AR, so centerfire .22's will certainly get the job done. I think the real meat and potatoes of the issue is availability. I doubt the "casual hunter" everyone keeps alluding to spent hours going over ballistics charts to discover the end all, beat all super mag. It was just a matter of walking into a shop or show and seeing a rifle in their price range. That simple. The fact that it was chambered in .729 Redneck had little to do with the decision.

So a question: if there's no ego involved in the magnums, why is it that the mere suggestion that they aren't neccessary enough to set off a certain kind of magnum owner?

Click to expand...

Mainly because the magnum bashers are being asinine. Heck some people (myself included) buy a rifle with caliber being one of the last concederations

Why is it all non magnum shooters think that this is the only reason people choose something belted? Could it possibly be that some people want to shoot a magnum just because

Are people who drive trucks with a larger engine than they NEED just feeding thier ego?

How about watching a larget than 13" television

A 2" pecker works just fine to, but that doesn't mean everybody should be happy with one

So why does that get the "magnum men" all uptight?

Click to expand...

Because it's a retarded arguement that is completly based assumptions on other peoples skill level that you know NOTHING about.

Here's a question for you, Can YOU shoot a good group with a rifle with a 7lb trigger?



Why is it that magnum bashers look at a rifle case with a belt and see some kind of hammer of the gods that is not ment to be weilded by mere mortals?
Where as most people just see just another rifle cartrige.

Fun thread; thanks. For the record, I have a .300 win mag, and I like it a lot. But it's set up as a long range target rig, and I've never hunted with it. For hunting, I favor a .308 for medium game (deer), and a .223 for coyotes and smaller varmints.

Ah, I used to have a Vanguard in .300 Win Mag, but I sold it when I moved to a woody region. My .30-30 will do anything I need there, but still, I miss the 'Bee.
One of many cases of seller's remorse, I'm afraid.

So by that same logic I should hunt with the bare minimum required by state law.

Click to expand...

Well, no, you should hunt with what you want to hunt with. Despite some of the frothing going on around here, I'm still not suggesting otherwise.

I doubt the "casual hunter" everyone keeps alluding to spent hours going over ballistics charts to discover the end all, beat all super mag. It was just a matter of walking into a shop or show and seeing a rifle in their price range. That simple. The fact that it was chambered in .729 Redneck had little to do with the decision.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think what often happens is the "casual hunter" talks to his buddies, or the guy behind the counter at the sporting goods store, or reads some article in the latest issue of "Whack 'em and stack 'em" and learns that the .300 Whizbang eliminates holdover out to 9,000 yards and guarantees a dead buck even if you hit him in the toenail. Then he goes to the range, discovers that extra 20 foot-pounds of recoil has wrecked his barely passable shooting, but figures it doesn't really matter. I mean, a gun that good takes most of the skill out of the equation, right?

Mainly because the magnum bashers are being asinine.

Click to expand...

That what passes for "high road" in the Ozarks?

Why is it all non magnum shooters think that this is the only reason people choose something belted?

Click to expand...

Ever heard of a strawman argument?

Could it possibly be that some people want to shoot a magnum just because

Click to expand...

I haven't seen a single person on this thread arguing against that, myself included.

Are people who drive trucks with a larger engine than they NEED just feeding thier ego?

Click to expand...

Often, IMO.

How about watching a larget than 13" television

Click to expand...

As an argument for the neccessity of Magnums, "Well, what about your big screen TV?!?" is one of the silliest I've encountered.

A 2" pecker works just fine to, but that doesn't mean everybody should be happy with one

Click to expand...

But not the silliest.

Quote:
So why does that get the "magnum men" all uptight?

Because it's a retarded arguement that is completly based assumptions on other peoples skill level that you know NOTHING about.

Click to expand...

I sense that you are nearing the point where you ask if my mother wears combat boots. So I'll tell you what, sport: you win. Magnums are neccessary for all hunting and anyone who doesn't use one has lace in his panties.

Have a nice day.

my 300 win mag after the hunt last saturday (and it dusted off a pretty fair buck, if i say so myself):

Newbie here, casual hunter

Interesting thread, I had to respond to it, but I do not own a 300 mag my last purchase I even traded my 06 in for a 7mm size bullet. I spent a lot of time researching for the perfect caliber and opted for the Rem 700 XCR 26” barrel in a 7mm Ultra Mag with a 3*9*42 Zies scope. The caliber will take down anything in North America and really reach out and touch a critter if need be. This is now my main riffle and even though it kicks like a mule I would not trade the gun for anything. People I hunt with say it is compensation for a short coming, but me on one block and them on there other block flinching at every shot with there non mags and me driving tacks. 100 yards I can put a grouping in a quarter size on every 3 shot grouping. Over kill for deer, “yes”, but that is why you shoot them in the neck and it even removes the head..LOL

For the price of riffles now a days why would you not go with a magnum caliber and have one gun that can do pretty much what ever type of hunting you want to do and just size down on the grain of bullet or up.

When I do go to deer camp or out, depending on where I decide to hunt if it is in brush, the 30-30 Westfield lever action over welms the killing power of the 7mm ultra mag

that is why you shoot them in the neck and it even removes the head..LOL

Click to expand...

I dunno, I shot that big mulie in the neck at 30 yards with my .300 win mag. Head stayed attached. Next time I'll get 'em

100 yards I can put a grouping in a quarter size on every 3 shot grouping.

Click to expand...

Not to single anyone out, but this may be a good illustration of the kind of attitude that concerns me. There is a certain kind of hunter that believes the combination of Whizbang cartridge and the ability to put down tight 3 shot groups from the bench at 100 yards is all he needs before whanging away at deer five or six hundred yards away. This does not mean that all owners of such rifles are given to such things -- nor that the author of the above quote is either -- but I have had more than enough experience with such folks to hold me for one lifetime.

As for the question of "why would you not go with a magnum caliber and have one gun that can do pretty much what ever type of hunting you want to do and just size down on the grain of bullet or up"? Easy: I like rifles of very low recoil; things like the 7X57. I personally like to get as close to the animal as possible, which removes the primary advantages of larger rounds. Were I to decide that deer at 500 yards was my game, I would certainly go buy a Whizbang -- and then practice religiously under real life circumstances until I KNEW I could hit at that range.

I personally like to get as close to the animal as possible...

Click to expand...

Upon re-reading, I think this may be an important insight into the "magnum vs. non-magnum" issue: Some of us tend to refer somewhat sneeringly to the folks who enjoy long range hunting, and I'm one of them. This isn't really fair as dead game is dead game and I should keep my personal biases to myself, but I personally can't help but be far more impressed by the man who took his animal at 50 yards than at 500. There are too many slobs shooting at ranges beyond their ability and then bragging when they luck out and hit something, IMO.

Which isn't, of course, the fault of the caliber. Guilt by association...

I'll go with that. I'm a new hunter, never shot my rifle past 100yds, and then only bench rested at the range. I figure I'm good to at least 200 yards if I can find a steady rest while hunting, otherwise it's 100yards or so until I get more practice. Eventually I'd like to be able to take a 300 yard shot if a great oportunity presented itself.

I did get a chance to shoot at a target about 200yds away finally with a half-ass rest, nailed it. But we'll see, without practice, I have no idea what my rifle and I are capable of

i do not always carry a magnum, but sometimes, i really do like to tote the. i like the 264 win mag,, the 8mm rem mag. would really like to get a 350 rem mag...when i guide, which is in bear country, i hang a stoked up 4570 lever gun from my saddle

Like I said on an earlier post, people think that just because the cartrige has a belt it hits like Thors hammer, well the game has a say in the matter to. I've seen maybe a hundred big game animals go down or run away wounded and heard anecdotel evidence on many more. The one truth always rings true. Shot placement =good skils at arms. An animal shot through the lungs will be down in 100 yds,an amimal shot through the shoulders is down now although meat will be lost, an animal hit in the nervous system ie. spine is down now but risky due to small target area and meat damage along back bone. A hit in the body out side the chest cavity=guts will kill an animal but they can travel 100s of yards unless liver or artery hit. Extremity like legs and you probobly lost it unless you can follow and get another shot in it. All that said it amazes me how some people will go in the field with ballisticly inferior firearms when they own or could bought a better one. A case in point would be a guy who has both deer and elk tag and is hunting canyons that will require at least a 300yd shot to get to the other side. He makes the shot with the 243 100gr bullet that gets the antelope and the deer and usually with dramatic results. the bull is standing behind some light brush that the shooter can't see clearly and on the edge of black timber that leads around a point to a side canyon. The bull doesn't go down like the deer do and just runs off into the timber and out of sight. What do you think happens? What do you think would happen given same shot with 30 cal magnum with 180 or better bullet designed for heavy game?

All that said it amazes me how some people will go in the field with ballisticly inferior firearms when they own or could bought a better one.

Click to expand...

Well hell, I'll bet your pet gun is "ballistically inferior" to a .50 BMG!

Every rifle I own is "ballistically inferior" if compared to a 7 STW or something. I like old cartridges and old guns and seeing how close I can sneak to the animal. If I can get to within 25 yards of a boar and then plug him with a 6.5x52R from a hundred year old bolt gun, then I'm a happy camper.

And on the way back to the truck, I'll try not to sneer at the guy who's bragging about his 500 yard lazered and mil-dotted pig "hunt".

Oh, and as for the elk/243? Of course that's a foolish combo. OTOH, it doesn't make a Magnum "neccessary", although there's nothing wrong with using one. A .270/.280/.30-06 would have been just fine, especially with a modern "super bullet".

And I tend to wonder about the "at least a ___ yard shot is neccessary in this kind of country" statements. Again, not trying to single you or anyone else out, but my automatic read on this kind of statement is "Hmm. Maybe some more stalking practice would help..."

Yes, This Year.

I just bought a new rifle, Mark V in .300 Win Mag. It's accurate, shhots flat and is just plain fun. The recoil is deceptiovely soft. But, I also keep the .308 loaded for close-in shots, such as the woods. Again, distance and intended game.

Doc2005

My intent of the balisticly inferior comment was to use enough gun. Simply said if you stalk to 50yds enough gun is a 30-30 44mag or many others that certainly are not appropriate for cross canyon shooting. Using 300 yds was an arbitrary number, in areas of the west that I hunt one can be in timber were 75yds is a long shot and open country were a 500yd shot across a canyon is not unheard of all on the same mountain so you'd better have a gun that will do the job and be up to it yourself. I don't know were your from 38 but a stalk on a standing and probobly alarmed bull is not good odds when you have to cross a deep valley and deal with brush over your head when your on his side. If you find one sleeping the best you can hope for is closing the gap to the point of losing site then check range wind and such and wait for him to expose vitals. Regarding the other calibers and super bullets, most people reading shooting forums are well aquainted with the ___________can be loaded to ___________ magnum performance, true but then can't said magnum be loaded higher yet. I personaly hunt at times with 45-70, 25-06 280, 30-06 and even 243 but the point remains use enough gun for the most extreme requirments of your hunt and you will honor your sport and quarry.

PS I have heard more than one so called hunter say his elk rifle of choice was 243 with shot behind the ear and will bet some will soon show themselves here.

Fair enough, x-rap. My point, though, is that no matter what gun you have you will be presented with unmakeable shots. I often see game animals at 1,000+ yards. This does not mean that I need more rifle, it means that I need to get closer. If I cannot get close enough, it means that I do not deserve the animal.

I personally have not ever met anyone that can consistently -- like at least 95% of the time -- hit a target the size of a big game animal's vital area, from field positions, in the real world, at 500+ yards. Those people may well exist. I just don't know any of 'em. I do, however, know a bunch of people that think they can, and that really bothers me. These people invariably place a great deal of trust in their Whizbangs, making statements very much like "She'll group into the size of a quarter all day long."

That probably explains a lot of the "anti-magnum" attitude. It's not that I'm against magnums per se. I just don't tend to appreciate a certain kind of person that gravitates to them.

Bottom line: my personal limit on "paper plate" vital targets, from field positions, with the first cold clean shot, in the wind, with the sun in my eyes, whatever, is about 250 yards. I'll extend that a touch if everything is just right, but I know from great personal experience that there is simply too much luck involved in hitting a 500 yard target for me to give it a try on a game animal. And for 300 yard shots, a magnum is just extra noise.

YMMV.

I love my .300WM. It's the perfect compromise. The most common rifle calibers I see up here are .338's. I don't feel my .300 is underpowered in any way... of course I haven't gotten to go on a brown bear hunt - yet, we'll see then. The .300 is perfect for our moose. Didn't realize I'd necro'd an ancient thread - Sorry

I don't currently own any "magnum" rifles.

I do see the purpose of at least some "magnums", but I probably won't be looking to get a .300 WinMag any time soon, precisely because it is a compromise cartridge. For me, the .30-06 is a better compromise, because I can get (and own) a lighter, quicker-pointing rifle with the standard long Model 70 action. Obviously, I am not alone in liking the perennially-popular round that falls in the middle of the .30 caliber spectrum, and pretty much in the middle of the hunting cartridge spectrum across the board.

If I do get a magnum, it probably won't be a .30 caliber, since I would be looking at a more specialized rifle -- either something for long range, or something for hard hits. .240 or .257 Weatherby appeal to me, for pronghorns at long range, because they shoot about as flat as anything ever made for hunting medium-sized game. .338 might make a good elk stopper, with potential for moose.

There is elk hunting right above my house, but the best opportunities in the immediate area are with a muzzleloader, so the .338 isn't a priority. And I screwed up on the tag drawing last year, so I still haven't hunted pronghorns. I figure I ought to shoot at least one with a rifle I have, before dropping the cash on one of the smaller-bore Weatherbys, working up loads for it, etc.

I can't see much need for the 30 caliber and larger magnums here in Alabama. Our deer aren't that big, (a 200lb buck is a monster here). And the average shot distance here is less than 100 yards. IMHO a large magnum offers no real world advantage over a standard caliber like a 270, 308, or 30-06 at ranges under 300 yards. And the average hunter here that I have encountered can't shoot well enough to utilize any advantage they offer past 300 yards. In fact most, in the terrain we hunt here, will never take a shot over 300 yards at deer in their life.

So why do so many here buy them. I quote this previous statement for absolute by God truth!!!!!

Actually, I think what often happens is the "casual hunter" talks to his buddies, or the guy behind the counter at the sporting goods store, or reads some article in the latest issue of "Whack 'em and stack 'em" and learns that the .300 Whizbang eliminates holdover out to 9,000 yards and guarantees a dead buck even if you hit him in the toenail.

Click to expand...

Now I don't really care what you shoot. It's your money for the higher priced ammo, your shoulder, and your potentially detached retina. If you can shoot them well and like them then God bless. But I have long fought the push to sell these things to locals as a needed or superior deer killer.

And here are some reasons why.

Bullet problems: As stated before the average shot distance on deer here in Alabama is pretty close. Close shots mean higher impact velocities. From these whizbang super mags close range extreme impact velocities often cause over expansion and bullet failure. I know a guy that was absolute amazed that he wasn't getting pass throughs on deer with his 300wsm rifle. Standard bullets were just fragmenting all to hell at the short ranges he was shooting deer and just mangling lots of edible meat. So he started using a much tougher premium bullet. End result? He's now paying 50 dollars a box for a tougher premium bullet that, out of his 300 wsm, is putting the same size hole through deer that a plain old Remington Core-Lokt would at 308 velocities.

Recoil: If you can shoot a magnum rifle without it's recoil affecting your accuracy that's great. So can I. I just don't care to. But many people cannot and are far better of with a milder recoiling gun. I worked with a guy that was using a 300 win mag when I first met him. He was disappointed that many of the deer he shot were still running a good bit before dying and was considering stepping up to a 338 magnum. I spent one day shooting with him at the large gravel pit on my families land and could clearly see the problem was his poor shooting due in large part to his fear of the recoil of that 300 mag. He would literally jerk his whole head back as he fired the shot. Seems that on one previous hunt the scope had half mooned him over his right eye and now he had a wicked flinch. After much convincing (magnumitis is a powerful disease) I talking him into getting a 7mm-08 instead of a 338 mag. Over time he came to shoot that soft recoiling rifle pretty darn good at the old gravel pit. The first year he hunted with it he killed 3 deer (two of them hunting with me) all hit right behind the shoulder and not a one ran more than 40 yards. Ahhh, but he changed jobs, i saw him much less and he fell back in with a "Magnum" crowd. The 7mm-08 went back in the gun case and back out came the buddy impressing 300 win mag. End result? He missed one deer last year and wounded another which he never found. Guess he will be getting that 338 win mag before next year for some "Extra Knockdown". LOL!~

I don't see anything wrong with using a 'magnum' if that floats your boat.

But there is an undeniable point of diminishing returns. Why would you use a 338 Win mag on small southern whitetails when a .257 Robets would be more than enough for the task? You don't even get the benefit of the magnums extended killing range in that sort of environment.

From a practical point of view, a magnum is normally uncalled for UNLESS you are: hunting large bodied or dangerous game, hunting medium game at extended ranges, or you may encounter dangerous predators while hunting lesser game (such as deer hunting in bear territory).

In reality most of us will never make it to Africa or Alaska, most of us dont have the skill to take deer ethically at 600+ yards, and large bears only inhabit a small section of the contiguous states.

Its nice to dream though.

The only "magnums" I will ever own are the .44 magnum, and the 257 Weatherby. Both have more than one niche' use and are solid all around permormenrs.