With the endless debates of "what's the best cartridge, bullet, optic for hunting this or that" ....

[<*(((><]

@Flintknapper What bullet were you using in .223?

 

[jmr40]

Most people think their favorite is best. Truth is all cartridges are closer to the same than different, the bullet you choose is more important. Every cartridge 26 caliber and up can, and has taken every game animal on the planet. There are only about 4-5 that even the 26 calibers aren't really suited for even though they have taken them. The 22-25 calibers will take most of them but don't shoot bullets heavy enough to ensure adequate penetration on stuff much bigger than deer. Elk would be about the limit and event then shot placement and bullet choices are vital.

When deciding which is best for you comes down to how much recoil you want to tolerate, how far you have the skills to shoot, cost and availability of rifles and ammo, and personal preference.

I don't pretend they are best, but I have a preference for the 6.5CM and 308. Not that at least a dozen others would be just as effective, but when it comes to availability of reasonably priced rifles and ammo this is where they are. Both have reasonable recoil, shoot bullets with enough weight and sectional density to penetrate any game animal in North America and do it out to at least 400 yards. That is as far as I have the skills to shoot. If I were capable of hitting a game animal at 700 yards I might choose something else.

Many years ago the only legal option for deer during the Iowa gun season was smooth bore shotguns and slugs.

Exactly why do these restrictions exist in certain states?

In densely populated areas the logic is that slugs won't travel as far and hit homes or people. It makes sense on a certain level. There are a couple of counties here in GA near Atlanta that are archery only for that reason.

 

[Garandimal]

I haven't asked "what's best", only about personal real-world experience that helps us form our strategy for success.

I was with a friend from Hawaii a few years back and witnessed her shoot a medium sized Whitetail buck at about 300 yards using a .270 Win. She was shooting a 130gr Barnes bullet and pulled the trigger right at the end of legal light. Another person with us thought she missed the buck entirely so probably wasn't that enthused when we looked for a blood trial in the dark. There was no blood trail to follow so we decided to come back out the following morning and found the buck about 100 yards from where he was shot. When we gutted him we found a big hole in the heart so she made a great shot. That same weekend I shot a big mule deer buck at 205 yards or so using my .375 H&H. He took half a step and dropped dead. When we gutted him he also had a big hole in the heart. Maybe this is confirmation bias but it left me thinking that I don't want an animal to run 100 yards or more, jump a fence onto private property, or fall into a coulee (that almost happened on a friend's elk hunt). This might be where my distrust of smaller calibers comes from. That said, I was with a friend a few weeks back and witnessed him shoot a big mule deer using a 6.5 Creedmoor. That animal didn't drop on the spot but went about 100 yards before expiring from a near perfect double lung shot. My lack of experience means a small data set, but having seen animals run, animals die virtually on the spot, entrance/exit wounds, holes in hearts and lungs, I have my own ideas about what I think gives me the best chance of success. Those ideas are constantly evolving with more real-world experience.

Well...

Both larger calibers, and high velocity, transmit shock better.

And for a std. hunting rifle, they are generally mutually exclusive.

As I generally shoot a .270 WCF, as long as the range is 300 or less, will reinforce penetration at the expense of some velocity with 150 gr. lead core bullets. These get put either high through the scapula on a broad-side, or the off shoulder on a quartering shot, avoiding heavy bone until the end, when the bullet has dumped energy and slowed down. The scapula shot usually drops'em like they were electrocuted, and the off shoulder like they were hit by my pickup truck. Some wobble and hobble, but very few run.

For mono metal, which have been 140 gr. TSX for the big stuff, and 130 gr. Federal Trophy Copper (tipped) of late for plains shooting, heavy bone is the First thing I'll drive them through. Put'em through a femur, or the point of the shoulder, and they are not goin' anywhere.


For precision hunting - this is a very good article on the subject:

Effective Game Killing




GR

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Exactly why do these restrictions exist in certain states?

Safety, Shotguns and slugs and now straight wall cartridges have rainbow trajectories.
It is thought that bottleneck cartridges would pose too much of a danger in the more densely populated rural areas of the Midwest and Eastern States.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There's a lot of variables beyond he cartridge and what's on paper....

EVER NOTICE...for example in archery, how every year there is a new "number one bow" and lots of folks rush out to get one, even if they had a different bow the previous year which was that year's "number one bow"?

EVER NOTICE there's often a new cartridge out on the market, and gosh you gotta run out and get a rifle in that!

My question..., did last year's bow wear out? Did it spoil with age? How about that decades old rifle with that "old cartridge" that has harvested many pounds of venison? Did it suddenly get inaccurate? Did the bullets stop doing their job on impact? (Nothing wrong with taking advantage in a new bullet design for that old cartridge btw)

I have an old Mauser in .308. It has a Leopold scope that's 35 years old. Still shoots 1 MOA with the right ammunition. Where I moved when I left The Service, I can't use a rifle with fixed ammo for deer, so I had the option of shotgun or muzzle loader. I've never had a problem harvesting deer with a very old school, patched round .530 ball, launched from a repro flintlock. NO idea why somebody hunting with black powder at under 100 yards range opts for the much heavier kick of a conical or a sabot, especially with the powder loads that they use. My sphere of lead will go through a deer broadside even out to 110 yards. (Except for the better reliability when it's raining that you get with a modern cartridge...that's a good consideration for a modern ignition system on one's rifle or shotgun). BUT then again I also have a .54 caplock, which is as reliable I've found in the rain as the Mauser.

Great..., so your rifle cartridge and your rifle and scope can reach out 400+ yards on paper, maybe even further. Can YOU do that when using it? Can you go to 300 yards? So really the question is...what can you use to hit, and how far away?

Sure you can use a .338 Lapua in terrain similar to where I use my flinter, but I'm not sure the deer would know the difference if you used a lever action in .357 Magnum or .44 magnum. On the other hand you with a .30-06 and shooting at distance of 300 yards which you have practiced, will bag venison, while I with my flinter wouldn't even think of trying a shot at that distance..

The Best Rifle and Caliber is the one that you can reliably, confidently use to harvest venison. It doesn't have to be using the "newest cartridge", nor pretty, unless YOU want it to be so. It has to hit where you want it to hit when you decide to take the shot, and it has to put the deer down. That's all.

I've seen masterpieces of artwork that would cost me a month's take-home pay, slay deer, and I've seen rifles do the same that were so "rustic"...I was amazed when they fired, let alone hit the deer in the right spot. IF it works for you who am I to give you any grief over the tool of your choice.

What's more important, is ...., what time should I arrive for venison steaks, and do I bring wine or beer, or both when I come over....???

LD

 

[skeeterfogger]

The best is what for you has proven accuracy, fits the game, range available and type of terrain.

 

[DocRock]

Arguing over ballistics, the merits of various firearms, bullet construction, other assorted minutia, and the theoretical efficacy of every darned thing under the sun is the essence of being a gun-bug. If you want peace, love, and harmony, macrame might be the ticket. ;p

 

[Flintknapper]

@Flintknapper What bullet were you using in .223?

I don't recall the exact bullet (this has been over 20 years ago) but something by Remington (about 60 grains or so, expanding bullet).

 

[entropy]

Exactly why do these restrictions exist in certain states?

I can't speak for other areas, but in Minnesota and Wisconsin, it was because the southern parts of the states are more populated, with any non-inhabited land in tillage.The wooded northern half of both states were rifle (as well as shotgun, pistol, and muzzleloader), and the southern half was Shotgun, pistol, and muzzleloader only because they had shorter ranges and errant bullets didn't go far. Then people (in WI, at least) started hunting with rifle-caliber pistols, (Contender, Witchita Silhouette, XP-100, Savage, etc.) and all the houses did not become Swiss cheese, so eventually after several years of hunters pushing for it in the local DNR meetings, rifle was made legal statewide. I do not know if Minnesota has done so, I haven't hunted there in over 30 years.

 

[FL-NC]

I can't speak for other areas, but in Minnesota and Wisconsin, it was because the southern parts of the states are more populated, with any non-inhabited land in tillage.The wooded northern half of both states were rifle (as well as shotgun, pistol, and muzzleloader), and the southern half was Shotgun, pistol, and muzzleloader only because they had shorter ranges and errant bullets didn't go far. Then people (in WI, at least) started hunting with rifle-caliber pistols, (Contender, Witchita Silhouette, XP-100, Savage, etc.) and all the houses did not become Swiss cheese, so eventually after several years of hunters pushing for it in the local DNR meetings, rifle was made legal statewide. I do not know if Minnesota has done so, I haven't hunted there in over 30 years.

I have heard similar answers to yours regarding several states up north and in the midwest- that is, that it generally comes down to "safety". In the South, there are few if any restrictions on private land. Public land can be a toss-up. Some places, hunters are restricted to elevated stands if using a rifle vs ground blinds and the like. However, many hunters use rifles when and where they can, yet somehow we still manage to not wipe ourselves out in our flat terrain (Fl, and many parts of Tn, NC, and Ky are pretty darn flat) every fall.

 

[FL-NC]

Safety, Shotguns and slugs and now straight wall cartridges have rainbow trajectories.
It is thought that bottleneck cartridges would pose too much of a danger in the more densely populated rural areas of the Midwest and Eastern States.

See my post above to entropy.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

See my post above to entropy.

I did not say that I agreed with it just that it is the reasoning of the state.
It makes no sense since there are no restrictions on rifles for coyote, Fox or anything else.

 

[buck460XVR]

I haven't asked "what's best", only about personal real-world experience that helps us form our strategy for success.

Oh, I dunno. When I read the title of this thread it says......."what's the best cartridge, bullet, optic for hunting this or that".

We all would love to have that "magic" bullet/caliber/platform that would assure us a DRT on every shot. Outside of a bazooka, I doubt if that will ever become reality. Most every animal I have shot has reacted differently, even when shot placement, caliber and platform were the same. Have had to trail heart/double lung shot deer and have watched the same drop on the spot. Generally those that dropped on the spot, also had their shoulders broke. Kinda why gun hunters aim for the shoulders while us bow hunters aim behind. Angle of a boiler room shot may mean one does not impact the shoulders at all. All we can do is to take high percentage shots and be proficient with the weapons of our choice. A $3000 set-up is no better in the hands of someone who shoots the gun once a year than a iron sighted 30-30 in the hands of a well practiced shooter. When it comes to rifle optics. most of the high end scopes have better clarity and better low light transmission. That is what you are paying for. Drop em outta your treestand and you need to verify any scope is still "on". Part of being a responsible hunter is not just using the "best" equipment, but be proficient with it and knowing it's and your, limitations.

 

[FL-NC]

I did not say that I agreed with it just that it is the reasoning of the state.
It makes no sense since there are no restrictions on rifles for coyote, Fox or anything else.

I didn't mean it that you agree. I certainly don't, and I also believe it makes no sense regarding the other species you mentioned.

 

[MCMXI]

Oh, I dunno. When I read the title of this thread it says......."what's the best cartridge, bullet, optic for hunting this or that".

So that's what you took away from the complete thread title and my first post, not just the snippet you posted above?

What's confusing about the first sentence in the first post in this thread? Where am I asking "what's the best cartridge?". Selective reading seems to be the norm these days.

"So have you personally experienced a situation hunting in which you had reason to doubt or regret your choice of rifle, cartridge, bullet, optic, etc?"

 

[gspn]

If you want peace, love, and harmony, macrame might be the ticket. ;p

I dunno man, you should see some of the flame wars and arguments over on the macrame site.

 

[buck460XVR]

So that's what you took away from the complete thread title and my first post, not just the snippet you posted above?

That wasn't a snippet, but the Title. Titles are not just a snippet, but have a function. Titles predict the content in the thread, reflect the tone or slant of said thread, include keywords towards that slant or tone, and catch interest. Your title should never mislead the reader, as it has already biased their mindset. It is readily apparent that many here besides me, misunderstood you. It seems to me tho, that the blame is not ours. Hard for me to tell if your title was declarative or descriptive, still the keywords "what's the best" give the same impression. One only has to read the posts to see the word "best" repeated several times.

Kinda the issue with the internet and social forums. Hard to always understand sometimes the idea the author is trying to convey. Posts are short and many times not always thorough. Not all folks are the best at composing and not all of us are the best at comprehending what others are inefficiently conveying. Sometimes folks make a joke that isn't taken as a joke.Sometimes folks take constructive criticism as condescending( I admit sometimes, it's a fine line). Sometime folks just don't take kindly to folks that don't agree with them 100%, regardless of how respectfully it was posted. Nature of the beast.

"So have you personally experienced a situation hunting in which you had reason to doubt or regret your choice of rifle, cartridge, bullet, optic, etc?"

For sure. Can't count the times I've walked in the woods with light grouse loads and had to pass on the opportunity for a fall turkey. Same goes for when sitting in a bowstand and a nice rooster walks beneath me. Then, the next day I take the SxS out hoping to jump that same rooster and a nice buck walks up to within 30 yards of me. Two weeks ago I walked by one treestand to bowhunt another, 60 yards farther in the woods. Spent the last 30 minutes of daylight watching a nice 10 feed on cowpeas and buckoats directly underneath that other stand. I guarantee you, I'll be regretting that choice for a long time.

 

[CraigC]

I found the .243 and .250 leaving me wanting when shooting deer with 100gr bullets. I completely disregard the .243 and only use premium bullets in the .250. I know plenty swear by the .243 but I don't think they're very up front about their shot placement or their expectations are low. I had a really scary bullet failure with the Winchester 1895 .405 with the 300gr Hornady factory load. Shooting downward the bullet came completely unglued on a doe's scapula and it required a brain shot to anchor it for good. Very unexpected.

I've had probably a dozen cheap scopes fail but luckily, it was mostly on rimfires and the hunts they ended were not the end of the world. As such, you'll NEVER catch me on a paid/guided hunt using a cheap scope. Of course, there are those who swear by their Tasco's, Simmons and other el cheapo scopes but they never had one fail at the worst time either.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I did not say that I agreed with it just that it is the reasoning of the state.

Speaking of the Reasoning of The State.

My state is tri-furcated into three parts but is labeled into two "zones". Zone B....shotgun and muzzleloaders, and rifles no more than .22 caliber. The state does not specify that you have to use a rimfire in .22 caliber or less...so...are 204 Ruger, 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 220 swift, .221 Remington Fireball, .22-250, ,222 Remington, and ,223 Remington/5.56 NATO legal in Zone B? According to the wording of the law they are, but..., according to the DNR they are not. It's been a few years since I read the exact text, so perhaps they have reworded it and removed the problem.

You can't use a rifle to hunt deer in say .357 Magnum, .44 magnum, 10mm, .41 Magnum, .454 Casul, or .500 S&W...., in Zone B,...but in some counties in that zone you can use a handgun to hunt deer in any of those calibers. I should think that it less likely that a person with a long gun having a stock, and the longer sight plane, or a scope and a steadier position than a handgun, would be less apt to toss a round too high or such, and be "safer" (at least on paper) than a handgun.

LD

 

[buck460XVR]

Speaking of the Reasoning of The State.



You can't use a rifle to hunt deer in say .357 Magnum, .44 magnum, 10mm, .41 Magnum, .454 Casul, or .500 S&W...., in Zone B,...but in some counties in that zone you can use a handgun to hunt deer in any of those calibers. I should think that it less likely that a person with a long gun having a stock, and the longer sight plane, or a scope and a steadier position than a handgun, would be less apt to toss a round too high or such, and be "safer" (at least on paper) than a handgun.

LD

I would assume it has to do with the higher velocities produced by the longer barrels and thus more risk farther downrange than with a handgun.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I would assume it has to do with the higher velocities produced by the longer barrels and thus more risk farther downrange than with a handgun.

That would be the "reasonable" assumption, but it's probably more like "longer gun, shoot bullet. be more scary". The fact that a sabot round from a shotgun or a 400 grain slug from an inline being comparable to a modern rifle, not to mention a .454 Casull is a lot more than a .357 Mag from a handgun, is not part of the "thinking" process. It's not The People's Republic of Maryland without good reason.

LD

 

[wombat13]

I have two contributions:

1. Using my M-1 Garand for deer hunting. IMO, the peep sight is a poor choice for hunting. It was snowing wet snow (almost slush) the first year I hunted with it. The peep sight kept getting clogged with snow and I had to blow on it to clear the sight. That's a lot more noise than I want to make in a treestand. I took an 8-point buck the second year I hunted with the Garand, but I almost didn't because the peep sight dramatically reduces the light reaching your eye. The buck appeared shortly after legal shooting. It was less than 25 yards away, but when I looked through the peep I couldn't tell the difference between the deer, the trees, and the ground. I had to peek over the sight a few times and just as I had confidence I was aiming in the vitals, the buck saw me . Hit the buck a few inches too far back in the liver and it ran about 100 yards before dying.

I expect that the peep sight fans are going to arrive and tell me how wrong I am. Do peep sights work? Sure, but I can afford a scope, so I don't have to use a peep. I may hunt with the Garand again, but I'll do it only if I WANT the challenge of using the peep (and only on days when there is no chance of precipitation).

2. After taking 10 deer with 165 grain Barnes TSX in my .300WM, I've concluded that they don't open up fast enough on the the heart/lung shots I prefer. I had a number of deer run farther than I like, some of them with little/no blood trail. I've gone back to 180 grain jacketed lead bullets. Best terminal performance I've had with that rifle was 180 gr Nosler Ballistic tips (5 deer, all DRT or <40 yards), but the 165 TSX was more accurate (0.75" vs. 1.5" groups), so I switched. I haven't had a chance to load the Ballistic tips again, so I hunted with 180 gr PowerShok ammo (HotCor bullet)this year and performance was good, but I'll load either Ballistic Tips or Accubonds when I can.

 

[entropy]

Pinch the front and rear of the peep. The heat front your hand melts it, and it's silent.

 

[wombat13]

Pinch the front and rear of the peep. The heat front your hand melts it, and it's silent.

I'll definitely try that if I hunt with the Garand again. Although, the peep is small enough that the surface tension of water is strong enought that water will fill the hole. Ultimately, what I really want to do is get the Ultimak rail (no permanent mods) and scout scope it or a red dot. The Garand is my favorite rifle to shoot. I'd definitely like to hunt with it again.

 

[Choctaw]

Imagine that something like this would've happened after you've paid five figures for a once-in-a-lifetime -level hunt in Africa, saved for the trip for quite a while, taken the time off, made all the preparations, anticipated the trip for months or even years and so on. Been there, done that, paid my dues and eventually got the *HONK*ing scope to hold zero at a fixed magnification for the rest of the trip, with a screwdriver kit, superglue and one evening of tinkering instead of having a nice eland tenderloin steak dinner prepared for us by the outfitter.

Ouch!