Why does firearm choice for hunting often stir so much controversy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jason_W

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
2,203
Location
Valley of Stucco and Sadness, CA
Few things seem to polarize medium and large game hunters as much as firearm of choice.

To clarify: If I stated an intention to use a long or recurve bow, or a traditional muzzle loading firearm to hunt deer, few would have a problem with my choice.

Now, if I said I wanted to hunt deer with a .223, .357 mag, or smooth bore shotgun, wide-eyed vitriol would ensue from at least some forumites. Why is this?

A .223 or even .44 WCF is bound to ruin more vital tissue than even the most high-tech broadhead, so why is the bow hunter saluted and the .223 hunter admonished?
 
I do not know. The arguments seem silly to me. If the bullet will humanely kill the animal at the distance, who cares?

A friend of mine uses a modified Mauser to take a deer every year. Another uses an AK-47 with brass cased hunting ammo and a short mag. A third guy uses a Mosin Nagant. My last manager used a Remington 7600 in 30-06. If I hunted deer, I would use either a Marlin 30-30 or a Winchester Model 100 in 308 Winchester because those are in my safe. I would feel confident with a rifle in 243 in my area since 100 yard shots are few and far between. Why anyone needs a scope for a 75 yards shot is beyond me.
 
People often ask " which is best". There is no perfect answer and people often answer with their personal choice. I have strong preferences as to guns, scopes, and other gear. The caliber is far less important and most of the guns I own ended up being in the calibers they are in more by chance than by design.
 
Perhaps it is because a broad-head hunting arrow, in one side and out the other of a deers chest?
Will result in a DRT deer within 75 yards or less, and a blood trail Ray Charles could follow to find it. They usually are not in a great deal of pain, or any pain, and often just kick at the arrow when hit like a fly bit them.

A small caliber round, using the wrong type bullet, can result in a massive flesh wound and a badly wounded deer that may travel a long distance with no blood trail.
And suffer a slow and painful death a day or three later.

And it seems too me it is too likely a novice hunter with little firearms knowledge and a .223 will go to Wallyworld, buy a box of varmint loads, pop a deer in the shoulder bone, and then wonder why it ran off dragging one leg where he couldn't't find it.

rc
 
And it seems too me it is too likely a novice hunter with little firearms knowledge and a .223 will go to Wallyworld, buy a box of varmint loads, pop a deer in the shoulder bone, and then wonder why it ran off dragging one leg where he couldn't't find it.

that's a point. But if, in a similar vein, I suggested that a person just turning 18 should be required to take and pass a safety course before purchasing his or her first firearm, I would be run out of the gun community on a rail.

How is it cool to tell a fellow hunter that their weapon choice for hunting is all wrong, but it's not ok to tell them that they're not ready to operate a firearm in general?
 
Jason_W said:
Why does firearm choice for hunting often stir so much controversy?
Few things seem to polarize medium and large game hunters as much as firearm of choice.

To clarify: If I stated an intention to use a long or recurve bow, or a traditional muzzle loading firearm to hunt deer, few would have a problem with my choice.

Now, if I said I wanted to hunt deer with a .223, .357 mag, or smooth bore shotgun, wide-eyed vitriol would ensue from at least some forumites. Why is this?

A .223 or even .44 WCF is bound to ruin more vital tissue than even the most high-tech broadhead, so why is the bow hunter saluted and the .223 hunter admonished?
__________________

As crazy as it may sound, the inertia from an arrow will penetrate further than most caliber bullets. Secondly, no one I know would recommend a .223 for large game....medium maybe, but not large game.
 
Because each contributor has a favorite this or that...... and is only familiar with their weapon and is confident in their choice... That's why there are many choices and many opinions.
 
I live in Washington and if your were not born before a certain date you have to take hunter ED period. So here in this state there are forty somes that take Hunter ED.

As for the calibre /method debate...... Some of use have learned what works better and what ruins less meat. I hunt is some nasty areas and I choose tools that limit the odds of me having to go into the really nasty areas to drag out game and beat up my busted up old body more.

Now I hunt archery but I have hunted and still have the equipment for Blackpowder and Modern hunting.
 
About all I ever object to is "best". No "best", but quite a lot of "Good enough to do the job."

Sure, it's fun to pick nits about various favorites, but there's generally not enough difference to justify emotional squabbles...
 
Perhaps it is because a broad-head hunting arrow, in one side and out the other of a deers chest?
Will result in a DRT deer within 75 yards or less, and a blood trail Ray Charles could follow to find it. They usually are not in a great deal of pain, or any pain, and often just kick at the arrow when hit like a fly bit them.

A small caliber round, using the wrong type bullet, can result in a massive flesh wound and a badly wounded deer that may travel a long distance with no blood trail.
And suffer a slow and painful death a day or three later.

And it seems too me it is too likely a novice hunter with little firearms knowledge and a .223 will go to Wallyworld, buy a box of varmint loads, pop a deer in the shoulder bone, and then wonder why it ran off dragging one leg where he couldn't't find it.

rc
^^^^
This - use enough gun.
 
Simple. People often think that the choice they made or would make is the right choice and thus any variation from that is not, as if there is only one answer.
 
Huntin gun talk

Men have sat around the fire in deer camps, arguing the merits of this gun and that caliber for many years. The internet gives all of us know it all's a bigger audience. :eek:
 
Few animals produce the extreme emotions in their hunters than the mystical whitetail deer. If I had a dime for every friendship that has been destroyed and every heated argument between family members and neighbors caused because of this mystical creature, I'd be a rich man. Funny....it seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon as 40 years ago folks saw them more as a resource to share, not only the hunt, but the access to hunt and the meat gleaned from the hunt. Not like that any more. I've stated this many times before. I hunt deer mainly with handguns anymore. When I take the .357 revolver, folks accuse me of being unethical and using a caliber/firearm barely capable of taking a deer. Strange.....the several deer I have taken with it went 40 yards or less and I never wounded and lost an animal when using it. If I take the .460, folks accuse me of trying to compensate for a small male body part and using a firearm that is nuttin' short of extreme overkill, while wasting every ounce of meat on whatever I shoot. Of course they claim, I'm only using such a weapon to make up for being such a poor hunter and lousy shot. Funny, none of the animals I've taken with it prove their statements. Used to be folks used the most appropriate weapon they owned, made the best shot on the animal they could, and then used tracking and outdoorsman skills to find an animal that did not drop in their tracks. Was the same for everybody and was an accepted practice. Whatever happened to that?
 
It is because people defend the calibre's they have. One could hardly a calibre in a hunting rifle and then promptly tell everyone how poor it is for hunting.

People with numerous calibres seem to be less fussed and will recommend a wide range of calibres, those with only one calibre will defend that calibre to the end. This is how we are wired.
 
Here is my take on it. If you need to ask is such and such a caliber adequate for such and such game I think you already know to the answer. You're just trying to validate a poor choice.

If the round is adequate you don't need to ask anybodies opinion.
 
It is Tradition!!!
It began with "That spear is not a big enough caliber for Mammoth!!"
A shorter spear may be easier to carry, but you lose too much distance and accuracy.
A 20 arrow quiver looks stupid and should be banned. 3 arrows is all you need.

And so it goes......
 
What happened is the flood of new magical cartridges that have flooded the market as "the best". Marketing by TV and magazines convinced the less knowledgeable hunters that all other "slower" cartridges were somehow, now, inadequate. Every cartridge has it's limitations. But more times than not, the limitation is the hunter.

There was an older advertisement I saw posted on here a couple weeks ago by Weatherby. It stated that their new cartridge was so devastating that a vitals shot wasn't necessary. I read that ad two more times just making sure I read it right. Also as buck460 mentioned about losing skills, people have substituted skills for equipment. New more accurate rifles and faster and better cartridges and bullets. New blood trailing lights. New camo. New optics. New this and new that. It all sounds wonderful. "If I buy all this new stuff, I'm almost guaranteed success! Just look at all these famous hunters killing these enormous deer while using these products! I gotta have them!" Unfortunately, through dependence of these products, people have lost many skills and knowledge.

I killed 2 deer this year with a rifle. First two I have killed with a long gun in a LONG time. Because I am a bow hunter. I only hunted with a rifle because I had one day to hunt and I wanted to ensure I filled my brother's freezer. And I did. Come to find out, I could have killed both deer with my bow, but it was a new area to me and this was to put meat in his freezer, not a challenge for my hunting skills.

Those who say the .223/5.56 is inadequate for deer are wrong. It is adequate. With the proper bullet, and proper range, in the hands of a good shooter, it's perfectly viable. As are so many others out there.

The debate of "best" is never going to be settled. Because there is no "best". There's is only "preferential adequacy".

As for defending our own cartridges and belittling others, I agree that it does happen, but not everyone does it.
 
And it seems too me it is too likely a novice hunter with little firearms knowledge and a .223 will go to Wallyworld, buy a box of varmint loads, pop a deer in the shoulder bone, and then wonder why it ran off dragging one leg where he couldn't't find it.



I guess one COULD make the argument that somepeople don't know any better and use inappropriate bullets, aka varmint bullets, but on that same token, one could be just as ignorant as an archery hunter, and hunt deer using field tips. A moron can be found behind a bow just as easily as behind a rifle, and poor equipment choices can doom a hunt of any type
 
Our ancestors got the job done with a whole lot less. Sometimes I still like I'm running around with a hand cannon with my little ol' 308.
 
People have their favorites and people like to argue. I am one who likes a good debate, but the old worn out "which deer rifle is best" is long past my caring. There's dozens, why would ONE be THE best?

I do get tired of the "ammo is sold everywhere" argument. I cannot remember the last time I bought factory ammo for anything other than shotguns and .22s. And, I can reload shotguns, just that it ain't that fun or profitable. I have tailored loads for my rifles and standard loads for my handguns.
 
A hunting buddy's hunting buddy and I were chatting about 3 years ago about a boar I lost. I was shooting 5.56 and the shot was too far back. He started into this business about how I needed to "bring enough gun" which I later learned is a proverbial (maybe historic) catch phrase of a famous African hunter. "Bring enough gun" is apparently the answer to all your problems. He, of course, didn't waste his time with pathetic calibers such as mine. He shot things like .308, 7mm mag, and 12 ga slugs. Had I been using "enough gun" then I would not have lost that hog. He knew that and he wasn't even there! :eek:

I would see this guy 2-3 times a year when he would come down to Texas to hunt and he would get on me about bringing enough gun. Then he came back skunked from a hunt with my buddy. Maybe skunked isn't the right answer. Using a 12 ga slug gun, he bagged the leg of a feeder, missing what was reportedly a nice buck. I asked him how much is enough gun for a miss and about how he was going to cook the feeder. He hasn't bothered me since, LOL.

I find it amusing how folks are apt to blame bullet, caliber, firearm, etc. for problems with the hunter. "Enough gun" and the "right gun" is going to come down to a lot of things, particularly how well you use it.
 
"Enough gun" and the "right gun" is going to come down to a lot of things, particularly how well you use it.

TOO TRUE

I'd say especially on how well you use it...

I have had conversations with folks who said that if you're using less than a .300 Win Mag or .338 Win Mag, you're going to need to do a lot of tracking of your whitetail. :eek: And in the same conversation say that a .30-30 "Won't take deer". :confused:

I have met many who try to compensate for an inaccurate rifle, or probably poor marksmanship skills, by using a very large caliber, and proclaiming all smaller loads "inadequate".

I have met folks that proclaim my 225 grain .530, lead round ball at 1500 fps as "unethical" to hunt deer at more than 50 yards, or a poor choice at any range over 60 feet. :what:

I have met some who do not understand ballistics, and will proclaim one cartridge as poor, while another superior, when in fact they are launching the same projectile at nearly the same muzzle velocity. True, one specific rifle may shoot what it is chambered in with better accuracy than a different rifle in a different cartridge ..., but that's not the same when comparing what the cartridge will do.

I have also met some novices who were told one opinion about a cartridge, then told the opposite in another opinion, and that's where I've seen most of the questions of "is this adequate?" It's not been that they knew, it wouldn't work..., only that they are getting conflicting information, and are seeking a wider group of opinions. Sometimes they are using a very old cartridge, and haven't done much research, so again the question is due to misunderstanding ballistics and performance, and wanting quick answers.

In this day and age of the internet, many folks want to Google a question and get the answer in mere seconds instead of being patient, reading up, and learning all of the parameters.

LD
 
It is because people defend the calibre's they have. One could hardly a calibre in a hunting rifle and then promptly tell everyone how poor it is for hunting.

People with numerous calibres seem to be less fussed and will recommend a wide range of calibres, those with only one calibre will defend that calibre to the end. This is how we are wired.

I think this is basically the case. Folks who have chosen a .223 don't want to admit that it might be too small for whatever they're hunting. Those with a big magnum hold an opposite opinion. What amuses me the most is the arguments over which is better: .308 or .30-06. :rolleyes:
 
I still think most that hunt medium sized game with the .223 do so because of the AR15. I'd prefer an AR10 for hogs, myself, but hogs are generally shot at short ranges where head shots are possible and a controlled expansion bullet from a .223 can be properly placed. And, I mean, IT'S a HOG, right? Who cares if it dies a day later, so long as it dies?
 
I still think most that hunt medium sized game with the .223 do so because of the AR15. I'd prefer an AR10 for hogs, myself, but hogs are generally shot at short ranges where head shots are possible and a controlled expansion bullet from a .223 can be properly placed. And, I mean, IT'S a HOG, right? Who cares if it dies a day later, so long as it dies?

I vehemently disagree with the text I put in bold. Just because an animal is vermin in need of elimination doesn't mean it should suffer needlessly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top