I dont get the big GUNS?

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.

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.

It brings to my mind some adolescent game played with a ruler...

.....ever read this book?



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".

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.

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.

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.

Admittedly, Flintknapper has such a hog problem, he NEEDS to be able to line em up an shoot em 3 at a time...

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

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.

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.

buck460XVR said:

.....ever read this book?



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".

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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

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!"

Use GOOD projectiles and the smaller guns work great. That 62 grain .223 TSX will drop a hog like nobody's business.

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.

"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.

Andrew Leigh said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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."

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.

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.