Adequate....?

[BigBore44]

I'm having a hard time understanding why that word seems to be used so often with a negative connotation when referring to a cartridge or calibre for hunting game.

Merriam Webster: Simple Definition of adequate. : enough for some need or requirement. : good enough : of a quality that is good or acceptable : of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable.

Would "adequate" in the hands of a more skilled hunter that has more patience, better stalking skills, and proficiency with their rifle or handgun, then be "better than acceptable"?

I wonder if more often than not, this term is more representative of themselves as hunters and not the actual cartridge or calibre being inquired about.

What are your thoughts?

 

[gspn]

To some degree it depends on who labels it "adequate" to begin with. If the skilled hunter who knows his prey, his caliber, and his tactics labels it "adequate" then I'd say no, it won't be "better than acceptable" no matter how he employs it...because he has already taken that into account when he labeled it "adequate".

However, if a lesser skilled or knowledgable hunter labels it "adequate" then I'd guess that yes...there is substantial room for a more skilled/knowledgable hunter to use it in a way that is "better than acceptable."

There are so many people, of so many different skill and experience levels, who come at debates about cartridges with so many degrees of analytical proficiency (i.e. some have no logical basis for their opinion at all, and others have a very studied approach backed by a lifetime of experience and/or data), that there will never be a discussion that goes smoothly on these topics.

From what I've seen and experienced, those hunters who have a lot of experience, and a wide range of hunting experiences are most likely to agree that there are a wide range of calibers that will do a particular job well, and that there is no one BEST cartridge for any particular job.

But, this is the internet and to some degree it exists so we can all argue with each other...so let the games begin.

 

[BigBore44]

gspn,
I won't choose a specific cartridge for this discussion because the chosen cartridge will then become the topic of said discussion. But if .30 cal cartridge "X" is believed adequate, and .30 cal cartridge "Y" is believed better than acceptable, and .30 cal cartridge "Z" is somehow better than the other two, that can only be determined by bullet weight and velocity, which will give us energy. But all it really gives us is a reduced trajectory for the same weight bullet therefore increasing the effective range. Which, in the hands of a proficient shooter, reduces our need to increase our stalking/maneuvering/stand placement skills as hunters.

If the desired end result is a clean kill, is "adequate" not just a simile for "better than acceptable"? Because X,Y, and Z have all managed to cleanly harvest the desired animal before. And all have resulted in lost animals before. After a consensus agreement of what the adequate cartridge should be for a given animal, everything else is personal preference. It's not actually "better".

Or am I totally off base?

 

[gspn]

gspn,

If the desired end result is a clean kill, is "adequate" not just a simile for "better than acceptable"? Because X,Y, and Z have all managed to cleanly harvest the desired animal before. And all have resulted in lost animals before. After a consensus agreement of what the adequate cartridge should be for a given animal, everything else is personal preference. It's not actually "better".

Or am I totally off base?

I don't think you're off base at all. As I mentioned in the previous post, you're basically saying there are a number of calibers that will accomplish the mission.

What might make X, Y, or Z caliber "better" depends on the tactics you will use to employ it.

The caliber can't be considered independent of the tactics. For example, X might be a great cartridge with a long history of taking eastern whitetail in the woods at shorter distances. One using those tactics would say it's adequate for taking game under those conditions, and that calibers X and Y are in no way "better" under those circumstances.

However, if that eastern hunter went out west where the tactics generally employ spot and stalk, with shots averaging 300 yards or more...then caliber Y, or Z may in fact be "better" than cartridge X.

This is why I say the caliber can't be viewed independently of the tactics one would use to employ it. After all, the bow and arrow is adequate to take most game...anything more just gives us the luxury of range.

Let me know if I'm answering the right question with this. We might be looking at two separate issues.

 

[macgrumpy]

Because this is the Internet and most people don't know what their talking about.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or attack you but a good example is your own comments about bullet energy and taking animals at long range out west, neither are really true but the armchair snipers on the Internet have created these false impressions and most people don't have the experience to understand how untrue they are.

 

[gspn]

Because this is the Internet and most people don't know what their talking about.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or attack you but a good example is your own comments about bullet energy and taking animals at long range out west, neither are really true but the armchair snipers on the Internet have created these false impressions and most people don't have the experience to understand how untrue they are.

I have many good friends in Idaho, and Wyoming who take such shots evry year. They are not armchair warriors or internet snipers.

The fact is that there are shots in the wide open areas out west that you can take that simply do not exist in the more wooded areas of the country (ie the east and south).

For example, a friend of mine owns a 75,000 acre ranch in WY. Every antelope they took this year was shot from further than 300 yards. I hunt in MS and TN and took no shots further than 150. In fact, in most places i hUnt i simply can't see 300 yards.

Perhaps my cHoice of the word "generally" was inappropriate. One does not have to take such shots, but they present themselves with far greater frequency in many of our western states, and many do take them, and the tactic fits this discussion very well.

 

[Sam1911]

You aren't totally off base. Not off base at all.

Words are very liquid things. Their flat meaning is often overshadowed by what people imply by them, or what other people infer the speaker is implying. Some will say "that's (perfectly) adequate," and mean the dictionary definition. Other will say, "adequate" with a sneer in their voice, or they WON'T but their hearers or readers will think they did. And then "adequate" means "maybe ... barely."

Acceptable = adequate = should work fine, if things go as planned, with some slight safety margin for small errors.

Truth is there are a LOT of rifle cartridges available to us now and they all do very much the same thing. Knowing when a cartridge won't be adequate to make a high-probability kill is more art than science. And if we're to be very honest about it, it is even more a matter of accepting, and acting within, one's own limitations and the limitations of circumstances.

There is very little reason for any of us to go buy a new rifle (assuming we already have SOME rifle in a standard hunting cartridge). Lots of practice with our rifle and cartridge, and an understanding of the ballistics (both flight ballistics and terminal effect at various ranges) of our cartridge will mean we could soberly calculate (and prove through testing) at what maximum range we can perform a shot from a field rested position and hit the vital area of the animal we're hunting.

Some cartridges -- if we put in a lot of practice with that cartridge -- will push that high-probability-kill range out a few hundred yards further because of higher velocities and better flight characteristics which mostly just reduce the amount of elevation error due to ranging misjudgments.

Some cartridges will allow heavier and more toughly constructed bullets which give us better confidence in making kills on more stoutly built game animals, and perhaps also when the animal's presentation isn't perfectly square on and a shot might have to pass through more tissue to get to the vitals.

But the overlaps in all these areas, from one cartridge to the next, are just immense, and whether any cartridge is "adequate" is almost entirely a matter of what you can learn, know, and prove to yourself about YOU, the rifle, and the cartridge.

 

[buck460XVR]

What are your thoughts?

While the definition of "adequate" is objective, the definition of what guns/calibers are adequate for specific purposes are very subjective, thus the common cause for argumentative threads on internet gun forums. Many times folks use the word "minimal" instead of adequate.

Would "adequate" in the hands of a more skilled hunter that has more patience, better stalking skills, and proficiency with their rifle or handgun, then be "better than acceptable"?

No.....it would be the hunter's skills that would be "better than acceptable, while the firearm in question is still "adequate". Just as if when a "less than adequate" hunter uses a "better than acceptable" firearm, it does not make him "adequate". This is also a subject of argument on many gun forums. Some folks with little skill think that by using a bigger gun/caliber, it will make them a better hunter. Not true. Some folks think that any hunter, even highly skilled hunters, that use guns/calibers "more than adequate" are trying to make up for some other deficiency. That also is not generally true. Some skilled hunters tend to use what many folks believe are "less than adequate", i.e. primitive weapons for the taking of game. The use of these does not make them a less skilled hunter, only a hunter seeking more challenge, and can define the subjectivity of what really is "adequate".

 

[Art Eatman]

For cartridges, I tend to tie "adequate" to distance. A pipsqueak cartridge might be adequate for Bambi at 50 to maybe 100 yards, but not worth a hoot at 400.

 

[BigBore44]

Sam,
Thank for that reply. I believe your reply was quite accurate.

Art,
If your logic ties adequacy to distance, then most cartridges below 338 Lapua are inadequate due to lack of velocity and energy at distance with other cartridges.

Now, I realize that is oversimplification of your statement, but let's look at your statement for a second. A pipsqueak cartridge by your definition is one that's good at 50 yards but isn't worth a hoot at 400. Well a 444, 45-70, 458 WinMag fit your definition perfectly. But I don't think anyone would honestly say any of those 3 are pipsqueak cartridges. Same thing applies to the 243, 308, '06, 260-280 and many others. But most proficient hunters with actual experience with those cartridges in the field, would disagree also.

On another thread right now, the OP is asking about moose hunting. Everything from .243-375H&H has been opined on. So where is the line drawn?

I believe it's drawn at the ability of the hunter.

 

[macgrumpy]

I have many good friends in Idaho, and Wyoming who take such shots evry year. They are not armchair warriors or internet snipers.

The fact is that there are shots in the wide open areas out west that you can take that simply do not exist in the more wooded areas of the country (ie the east and south).

For example, a friend of mine owns a 75,000 acre ranch in WY. Every antelope they took this year was shot from further than 300 yards. I hunt in MS and TN and took no shots further than 150. In fact, in most places i hUnt i simply can't see 300 yards.

Perhaps my cHoice of the word "generally" was inappropriate. One does not have to take such shots, but they present themselves with far greater frequency in many of our western states, and many do take them, and the tactic fits this discussion very well.

The true ability of a weapon to take an animal depends on bullet placement and blood loss, as long as the bullet has the energy to penetrate to the vital organs the animal will die, how fast it dies will depend on which organs were damaged and how badly. If you can guarantee that you will always hit the brain stem of your prey then you can use a .22 cal pistol to take your animals, if you can't then you need to adjust the equipment to compensate for your inadequacy, that's how you choose a caliber and the type of weapon. If you think you will be shooting the animal at long range then you're going to need a big caliber with lots of energy that's extremely accurate with tuned hand loads and you need to do a lot of practice. On the other hand if you expect to track your animal and take the shot at more common hunting ranges then you could probably use a .308 or 30-06 to take any game in North America.

I don't know where you live but I can tell you that most guys that hunt for elk or deer out west (antelope are obviously a whole different style of hunting) shoot their game at ranges under 200 yards, the terrain is too thick with trees, blowdowns, and shrubs to see your game farther away than that, I've lived my whole life in Arizona, Utah, and now Montana so I know what the common hunting conditions are out west. I don't know if you've actually seen your friends take these shots but I do know that most people that make these claims aren't exactly accurate about what they did. Yes some do and can take these kinds of shots but I always wonder how many they wound for every one they kill. Personally I'm not impressed when people take these kinds of shots for sport, it's not necessary or humane. If you wound an animal at long range it can take hours to reach the kill site and by then the animal can move many miles away, you'll never find him and that's not ethical as far as I'm concerned.

 

[jmr40]

A pipsqueak cartridge by your definition is one that's good at 50 yards but isn't worth a hoot at 400. Well a 444, 45-70, 458 WinMag fit your definition perfectly.

A 444, 45-70 and 458 will take game at 400 yards. The problem isn't the lack of the cartridges abilities, but that it requires more skill on the shooters part to hit game at those ranges. If the shooter can make the hit, those cartridges will kill most any game at 400 yards.

A better analogy is 223. A 223 is adequate at 50-100 yards on deer size game. At 400 yards it would be much easier to HIT game with a 223 than a 45-70, but the 223 is no longer adequate for the job.

Another good analogy is the 30 caliber family of cartridges. A 30 Carbine is adequate for deer size game, but only at quite close ranges. A 30-30 is adequate for game up to elk out to 100 yards or so. It'll take deer out to 200+, although once much past 100 yards there are really better options. The 308 is adequate for elk size game out to 400ish yards, beyond that impact speeds are starting to get too slow to get good expansion. The 30-06 adds another 100 yards and many of the 300 mags have enough speed to allow bullet expansion out to 700+ yards.

But just like trying to kill game with a 45-70 at 400 yards, taking game with any of the others at longer range is really dependent on the shooters skill. Not really the cartridges ability.

 

[gspn]

The true ability of a weapon to take an animal depends on bullet placement and blood loss, as long as the bullet has the energy to penetrate to the vital organs the animal will die, how fast it dies will depend on which organs were damaged and how badly. If you can guarantee that you will always hit the brain stem of your prey then you can use a .22 cal pistol to take your animals, if you can't then you need to adjust the equipment to compensate for your inadequacy, that's how you choose a caliber and the type of weapon. If you think you will be shooting the animal at long range then you're going to need a big caliber with lots of energy that's extremely accurate with tuned hand loads and you need to do a lot of practice. On the other hand if you expect to track your animal and take the shot at more common hunting ranges then you could probably use a .308 or 30-06 to take any game in North America.

I don't know where you live but I can tell you that most guys that hunt for elk or deer out west (antelope are obviously a whole different style of hunting) shoot their game at ranges under 200 yards, the terrain is too thick with trees, blowdowns, and shrubs to see your game farther away than that, I've lived my whole life in Arizona, Utah, and now Montana so I know what the common hunting conditions are out west. I don't know if you've actually seen your friends take these shots but I do know that most people that make these claims aren't exactly accurate about what they did. Yes some do and can take these kinds of shots but I always wonder how many they wound for every one they kill. Personally I'm not impressed when people take these kinds of shots for sport, it's not necessary or humane. If you wound an animal at long range it can take hours to reach the kill site and by then the animal can move many miles away, you'll never find him and that's not ethical as far as I'm concerned.

None of what you have just written seems to address the OP's question.

You've defined the method by which a weapon takes an animals life, which was never in question.

You've needlessly (and argumentatively) repeated my statement that weapons and tactics (in your words weapons and distance) are inter-related.

You state how "most guys" out west hunt, even though that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It was raised in my example as a theoretical constraint related to the OP's original question.

You claim that "most people" who say they've shot an animal at more than 300yards don't know what they are talking about...a statement that is absolutely unprovable on your part.

Then you close with some vague statements about ethics.

Almost none of your rant addresses the OP's question. In fact he tried to leave caliber out of the equation to avoid a situation such as this...but you saw an example of someone taking a long range shot (again...used to bring up a theoretical constraint for the sake of the discussion)...and you found your opportunity to miss the point of the conversation.

I'd encourage you read the OP's posts...think about it...and see if you can give him an answer. Your posts so far lend credence to my comment about a lack of analytical proficiency on the part of some who approach these conversations.

Whether the example I use says that longer shots are sometimes taken "out west" or "on the moon" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The example has to do with the OP's question regarding "adequacy", and "adequacy" has everything to do with the tactics used while employing any cartridge.

 

[gwpercle]

Every year , while my dad and uncles hunted deer , I would go with my paw-paw to collect a wild hog or two. When I questioned his use of a 22 LR for hogs, when the other men all argued the merits of 30-30 , 30-06 , 35 Remington and 12 ga. shotguns with slugs or buckshot. He told me " Boy I"m going to tell you a secrete them others haven't learned yet. It's not WHAT you shoot an animal with , it's WHERE you shoot the animal. " He would wait until he had a shot through the ear hole and into the brain...every one dropped dead.
So I guess you could say that for my paw-paw the 22 LR was adequate for hog hunting !
And the 22 he used was a single shot ! But I never ever saw him need more than one.

Need to to add that my definition of adequate , is enough gun and skill to cleanly take the animal being hunted. Now I wouldn't hunt hogs with a 22 because I'm not that good of a shot or hunter.
The old man had released those hogs the year before , then would bait them and take them from a low stand. He set them up for an ambush but he wasn't a sporting hunter he was just "getting meat".

Gary

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Did I start this when I said the 30-06 was "adequate" in the moose thread?

 

[BigBore44]

Jim,
No you didn't start this. It is something I have seen many times in other threads. But I did read your post in that thread. There are many members here that when they post something, I enjoy reading and know I can learn from. I can't name them all right now but off the top of my head: you, caribou, buck460, rcmodel (for sure), Sam1911, gspn, BikerDoc, Walkalong, Reloadron, Flintknapper, H&H Hunter, and several others that I'm missing. Most of it is experience.

Anyone can pull a ballistics chart or reloading manual and spout numbers. It's the people who have been there/done that which I take interest with. I'm no fool. And I'm not an "internet sniper". Quite the opposite actually. My limit with any rifle for a medium sized or smaller game animal is 300 yards MAX. I'm limited by a condition called Familial Tremors. It's like mild Parkinson's without the detriment to my long term health. I've had it since I was about 14. So I have adapted my hunting techniques to overcome this. Truthfully I'm primarily a bow hunter. But those skills I've acquired through bow hunting have helped tremendously while rifle hunting to help fill freezers for people. It's also why I became a big bore lever gun and handgun guy. I don't need the distance my .223, .308, '06 or any other of my rifles affords me. So when I see "merely adequate" written about a cartridge, almost any cartridge, I have to question the authors abilities/knowledge, more so than the cartridge. Hence the reason for my thread topic choice.

 

[BigBore44]

gwpercle,
Assuming your story is accurate, and I'm by no means inferring that it isn't, it's my belief that you are correct about the adequacy of that single shot .22 and your paw-paw. He had the patience, and skills, to make that round adequate for hogs. His limiting factor with that round is distance. And he eliminated that factor. It says a lot about him as a hunter. Would I do it? I might. Never thought about it. But his experience and time in the field extinguished his doubt in the ability of himself, his rifle, and that particular cartridge.

 

[entropy]

It is all skills-dependent. The .22 LR would be adequate for most game in some very skilled hunters hand's, whereas a .600 Nitro Express wouldn't help some folks get their deer because of their lack of skills.

I'm somewhere in the middle.

 

[Art Eatman]

Thinking mostly of Bambi: IMO, "pipsqueak" would be such as the .32-20 or GI Carbine.

A basketball trajectory isn't indicative of pipsqueakery. I know full well about such as the .45-70. Four of us used to play with an old Trapdoor, back around 1970, at 600 yards. Bang! Lay rifle down. Light a cigarette. Pop a top. "Look! Dust!" The target was a five gallon bucket with some dry cement as an indicator.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Jim,
No you didn't start this. It is something I have seen many times in other threads. But I did read your post in that thread. There are many members here that when they post something, I enjoy reading and know I can learn from. I can't name them all right now but off the top of my head: you, caribou, buck460, rcmodel (for sure), Sam1911, gspn, BikerDoc, Walkalong, Reloadron, Flintknapper, H&H Hunter, and several others that I'm missing. Most of it is experience.

Anyone can pull a ballistics chart or reloading manual and spout numbers. It's the people who have been there/done that which I take interest with. I'm no fool. And I'm not an "internet sniper". Quite the opposite actually. My limit with any rifle for a medium sized or smaller game animal is 300 yards MAX. I'm limited by a condition called Familial Tremors. It's like mild Parkinson's without the detriment to my long term health. I've had it since I was about 14. So I have adapted my hunting techniques to overcome this. Truthfully I'm primarily a bow hunter. But those skills I've acquired through bow hunting have helped tremendously while rifle hunting to help fill freezers for people. It's also why I became a big bore lever gun and handgun guy. I don't need the distance my .223, .308, '06 or any other of my rifles affords me. So when I see "merely adequate" written about a cartridge, almost any cartridge, I have to question the authors abilities/knowledge, more so than the cartridge. Hence the reason for my thread topic choice.

Thanks for including me in that list of first class posters you mentioned. I consider it a honor.
I edited the moose post so you may not have seen it. I added I consider the 30-06 "adequate" on moose as I only have shot moose under 100 yards with it. And I always recover the bullet, telling me penetration may be lacking at 300-400 yards.
So I switched to a .300 WBY. No harm in being over gunned.

 

[macgrumpy]

None of what you have just written seems to address the OP's question.

You've defined the method by which a weapon takes an animals life, which was never in question.

You've needlessly (and argumentatively) repeated my statement that weapons and tactics (in your words weapons and distance) are inter-related.

You state how "most guys" out west hunt, even though that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. It was raised in my example as a theoretical constraint related to the OP's original question.

You claim that "most people" who say they've shot an animal at more than 300yards don't know what they are talking about...a statement that is absolutely unprovable on your part.

Then you close with some vague statements about ethics.

Almost none of your rant addresses the OP's question. In fact he tried to leave caliber out of the equation to avoid a situation such as this...but you saw an example of someone taking a long range shot (again...used to bring up a theoretical constraint for the sake of the discussion)...and you found your opportunity to miss the point of the conversation.

I'd encourage you read the OP's posts...think about it...and see if you can give him an answer. Your posts so far lend credence to my comment about a lack of analytical proficiency on the part of some who approach these conversations.

Whether the example I use says that longer shots are sometimes taken "out west" or "on the moon" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The example has to do with the OP's question regarding "adequacy", and "adequacy" has everything to do with the tactics used while employing any cartridge.

None of what you posted addresses the OP's original question either, it's just an argumentative attack against what I posted. In fact, most of the posters have had some element in their comments that doesn't address the OP's question...that's called a conversation, sometimes they move to the left and right of the original issue. I suspect that your real issue is that you didn't like my original answer so now you're just trolling and looking for an argument.

I apologize for being obtuse, let me draw a line from what I posted to the OP's question. Adequate is anything that drops the animal and as far as I'm concerned the .308 or 30-06 will drop just about anything in North American if you use the right bullet design for the job.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, "adequate" is good enough but still less than ideal.

 

[Sam1911]

Heh...and then you have to define "ideal." And that's even closer to impossible!

 

[DeepSouth]

Merriam Webster: Simple Definition of adequate. : enough for some need or requirement. : good enough : of a quality that is good or acceptable : of a quality that is acceptable but not better than acceptable.

Would "adequate" in the hands of a more skilled hunter that has more patience, better stalking skills, and proficiency with their rifle or handgun, then be "better than acceptable"?

If I do an adequate job at work, sure I'm "good enough" to keep my job. But the guy that's doing a better job than me will be the who gets the raise and promotion. It's the same with a bullet, sure X bullet is "good enough" but Y is better.

In short its used in a negative way because it's used to refer to the bottom of the barrel caliber's, even if the bottom of the barrel is adequate....it's still the bottom of the barrel.

 

[TimSr]

Most cartridges are adequate for most game. It's those stipulations that nobody can agree upon, such as "if you tilt it's head back and stick the barrel up it's nostril before firing".