When did rifles lose their Testosterone???

[CountryUgly]

Seems it wasn't that long ago that everyone had and recommended a 30-06 for hunting. It was no big deal if you owned a 45-70 or other big bore lever gun. If someone asked what to take north of the border to hunt Moose it was always "buy a .338 win mag". What happened to kids starting out shooting a 30-30?

Now days (at least in my area) it's "hunt with a .243 or .308, the 30-06 kicks too hard". A .35 Rem is a "thumper". Nobody wants a piece of a .338 win mag now days and offer up a .270 to pick a fight with a giant 4 legged creature. Not to mention the recently heard comment " Don't buy the kiddo a 30-30 it's gonna kick him too hard and wreck his aim. He needs a .223 to hunt with". Seems now days the .22lr is the "rifle to have" regardless if it's inadequate for the intended purpose. The sad part is I even found myself falling into the "sissy gun" category. I looked around and realized the "biggest gun" I had was a .223 chambered AR! The '06 was long gone and my trusty 30-30 hangs in a local pawn shop now. Well I've started upsizing the size of my bullets again. There are now bolt guns back in the house with a case capacity larger than 25grs once again! I ain't gonna lie though I still don't want any part of a .338 win mag I say it ought to now be required if you are going to own fire arms you have to have at least one gun with a bullet dia. of .308 or larger, a case capacity exceeding 50gn or produces recoil in excess of 23 ft lbs

 

[HexHead]

The AR happened and ruined a couple of generations of shooters.

 

[waterhouse]

I'm not sure (I'm much more of a paper shooter than an animal shooter) but I'd guess that advances in bullet construction and performance have helped.

Widespread information via the internet has probably had some influence as well. When I grew up, most people used a 30-06 for deer, even though deer around here are relatively small compared to those in other parts of the country. I didn't know anyone who used a .223 and a .243 was considered a kid's hunting rifle.

A few people saying they had great success with a well constructed .223 on the internet can reach a wide audience. Now I know a lot of guys who usually reach for a .223 for deer, and they are successful with them.

 

[taliv]

1) hunting cartridge should be sufficient. it doesn't have to be overwhelming. just because larger cartridges exist, doesn't mean smaller cartridges aren't more than adequate for any north American game.

2) shot placement is more important than caliber. a good shot with a 243win is a whole lot better than a 50bmg in the gut.

3) people who shoot a lot tend to learn there are a lot of advantages to the more moderate recoiling rounds. this includes being able to maintain your position through recoil so you can get a follow up shot if necessary and see your misses (watching impacts or trace), as well as simply not flinching as much

i like H&H's signature: "Bell who?? He did what with a .275 Rigby?"

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm --- talk about testosterone

 

[M-Cameron]

If you can do the same job adequately with a smaller cartridge, why wouldn't you?

Smaller cartridges are usually lighter, so you can carry more rounds/cheaper, so you can shoot more and practice at the range/ less recoil, which can lead to more accurate shots....

But hey, if loads of recoil makes you feel more manly, by all means enjoy...... I'll stick with my .22s

 

[HankR]

I'd like to blame it on the newer generation, but the bullets really are better these days. As I get older I'd rather shoot my son's .243 than my 30-06. I very well may trade him as he gets bigger and I get more frail.

 

[Comrade Mike]

I've even collecting battle rifles since I was 15, my first serious center fire rifle was a Mosin. Bring on that recoil!

 

[taliv]

from that link... after killing 1100+ elephants and 800+ buffalo etc with a 6.5mm and 7mm round doing only 2300 fps before WWI, he wrote an article in the 50s in American Rifleman stating that " if he had to do it [shooting elephants] all over again with a modern rifle he would choose a Winchester Model 70 in .308 Winchester loaded with homogenous bullets and sighted with a ghost ring rear aperture sight."


people in north America do not need a magnum pushing 300g at 3200 fps. they need to learn to friggin shoot and practice more often.

 

[Sam1911]

Sometimes we, as a species, do manage to get smarter. When one looks at a dead deer killed with a .243 or .257 Roberts, or heck, a .357 Mag., and one killed with a .338 Win Mag., they look awfully similar if hit well. And awfully similar if hit badly! (As in...where'd he go?)

There really aren't any extra points awarded for dealing with even a little bit of discomfort from heavier-recoiling cartridges. Or from buying expensive magnum rounds.

I think rifles lost their "testosterone" when folks started realizing that "testosterone" was really the only benefit the big guns offered most shooting needs.

Kind of like how fewer people commute 20 miles to work in a 4x4 pickup these days. Or buy 4,500 sq. ft. houses for a family of two or three. They wake up one day and say, "Wow, this is dumb!"

And if you can read a ballistics chart, and know anything at all about game animal physiology, you can look at about 1/2 the common hunting cartridges available and say, "Uhhh... WHY?"

Don't feel bad though. The Germans found they had a great, very effective 7mm rifle cartridge in 1892, and yet they and 'most everyone else in the world's armies couldn't bring themselves to get off the utterly unnecessary horsepower kick for the better part of the next century. (Arguably leading to a little bit of over-compensation with the adoption of the 5.56mm. )

 

[CountryUgly]

Whew... That's what I thought but just wanted to make sure I haven't become a "sissy" in my old age! I'll fess up! I have increased the size of my bullets from .224 but the largest still is only .277 dia. Don't get me wrong I dropped TONS-O-DEER with the '06 & 30-30 and loved them but that was when I was young and less broke down and before I discovered I didn't need the beating. What I found and I'm sure many others have also is I can do the same thing with less abuse to myself. The 6.8spc has replaced the 30-30 for my "brush gun" and the 6mm Rem is a fine sub for the old '06 for a bean field deer rifle. But there is a part of me that still "needs" to get a "mud hole stomped in me and walked dry" by a rifle. Don't know why but on that rare occasion it does feel good to shoot something that really goes BOOM. I get why folks have gotten away from the "big guns" but I don't get why they've shunned them all together???

 

[claiborne]

When I started getting old and losing mine.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Bullets technology started getting much better, particularly in the late '80s.

Mike

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

from that link... after killing 1100+ elephants and 800+ buffalo etc with a 6.5mm and 7mm round doing only 2300 fps before WWI,

So basically hunting elephants with a .300 Blackout AR?

Nevermind; bad comparison as Bell was using much heavier bullets at that velocity.

 

[silicosys4]

I personally still hunt with a 30-06 or .270, and consider the .243 as small as I'd ever want to go for deer, but still prefer the calibers that for me, has always dropped deer dead in their tracks without any tracking involved.
I am not a fan of the whole "challenging yourself via (imo) marginal equipment" if, when I'm not up to the challenge, a game animal has to suffer for it. When I pick up my rifle to go hunting, its not a game for me, and its not a sport, I'm not "testing" myself or my equipment by upping my chances of causing a game animals undue suffering. its a dedicated harvest to put meat in my freezer, my shot opportunities are often limited to one or two per season, and to that end I do not want to be hindered by the range and penetration shortcomings of smaller calibers. If I have to take a 350 yard shot across a clearcut, which is just as likely for me as a 50 yard shot through brush, having to pass up what might be my only chance to put venison in the freezer for the year due to caliber limitations is unacceptable. The bigger cartridges will do things the smaller ones won't, period.

Also, Bear season coincides with deer season here so there is a decent chance of taking a shot at a good size bruin while deer hunting, so even if a .223 were legal to hunt big game with in my state, I wouldn't use it. If you are trying to take a 400lb black bear with 10" of tissue to get through in any direction before you even get to vitals, a .223 is wholly inadequate with ANY bullet selection.

I can understand that better bullets have done a lot to advance the feasibility of small cartridges for bigger game, but imo all the historical examples given of smaller cartridges being used well are from professional or dedicated hunters who know the limitations of their guns and stay within them.

Some of us still like being old fashioned, and picking a bigger tool than is "needed" for the job, just like I like to have a tool kit and a can of fix-a-flat in my car even though I've never had to use it.

 

[oneounceload]

What happened? Simple.....people got smart and realized that doing permanent damage to their body from unnecessary recoil is about as macho as having pink toenails....Shooting uber-loads does make you "a man with testosterone", it makes you someone with a flinch as you get older. It makes your ortho surgeon's Mercedes payment a little easier for him, it also means you actually have to perform better shot placement on game instead of thinking that you can easily make 600 yard shots on deer cleanly

 

[Sam1911]

The bigger cartridges will do things the smaller ones won't, period.

But not much having to do with 350 yd shots, and deer sized game.

At those distances and against that animal, a 7mm Mauser, a .243, a .257 Roberts, a .250-3000, a .260 Rem., and probably 30+ other smaller cartridges would do every single thing that .30-'06 will do.

 

[Hunterdad]

Because overkill is just that.....overkill

 

[Hondo 60]

You bring up a good point!

I've never even considered deer hunting with a 223.
To me it's just to easy to "slightly" miss & end up with a wounded animal that runs off.

If I'm going deer hunting it's with a 30.06, or a 300 Win short mag

 

[WardenWolf]

For a few decades there was a cartridge war with ever-increasing power. You saw lots of new magnum rifle cartridges come on the market that ultimately don't do much more than increase shooter pain. I can see .300 Win Mag if you're hunting moose, but for everything else .30-06, .308, and smaller cartridges can do the job just as well.

Fortunately, the war is largely over. .300 Win Mag will remain common at the high end, but all the others, even 7mm Rem Mag, are rapidly fading from popularity.

 

[Unistat]

...people in north America do not need a magnum pushing 300g at 3200 fps. they need to learn to friggin shoot and practice more often.

QFT

 

[mljdeckard]

I concur with the above posted sentiments, that bullets have become much more effective, optics are a lot better and cheaper, and rifles are more accurate. All of these things make it much easier for smaller bullets to do the job.

I have a .270 and a -06, but if I get more serious about hunting elk (which may happen if the guard ever lets me have an autumn again,) I will look at getting a 300 win or 7 rem mag.

 

[silicosys4]

But not much having to do with 350 yd shots, and deer sized game.

At those distances and against that animal, a 7mm Mauser, a .243, a .257 Roberts, a .250-3000, a .260 Rem., and probably 30+ other smaller cartridges would do every single thing that .30-'06 will do.

I would feel comfortable hunting with any of the cartridges you mentioned, as I wouldn't consider those "smaller" cartridges, to be honest with you. In my post I did say that a .243 would be the smallest gun I'd hunt deer with, although a .243 and some of those other cartridges are getting marginal at 350 yards on a quartering away shot. I was more addressing the .223 and other "sissy guns" vs. deer.

I do consider all those cartridges you mentioned to be adequate, if not more than adequate, for up to medium ranges on deer sized animals, and indeed, some more suited than the 30-06 for that role. Those are all traditional "hairy chested" deer cartridges, to be sure, and are legal to hunt big game with in my state.

If live in a state that allows you to hunt with one, and you have a .223, can put the right bullets where they need to be every time, and can work within the range limitations, by all means, but accept that there are limitations and you are hunting with a marginal cartridge with limited range and penetration.....limitations that I don't want, enjoy, or need to be burdened with personally, hence my caliber selection.

 

[Texan Scott]

Where I live, there's precious little that NEEDS a .308. The deer really are small enough to take with a 223 JSP; I use an SKS at the moment, and 7.62x39 seems plenty. . I'll get a better rifle when I can justify the expense with a real NEED (haven't found it yet), but then I believe a good 30-30 would put meat in my family's freezer for the rest of my life. If you need "testosterone", you don't need a bigger rifle. You need to shoot more red meat with whatever's handy.

 

[JustinJ]

In high school there was a game played called "knuckles". You'd basically take turn punching each other in the hand until one person gave up. One guy may win the label of "tough" but both players win the label of dumb.

 

[627PCFan]

Everyone wants to shoot more ammo. What are you shooting more of in one sitting, 100 rounds of 30-06 or .223

And can you afford that...