This is like the Corvette = penis extension thing, right?

I'd say you're good somewhere between a BB cap and 8Bore. I'll take a "shitty" cartridge over a shitty rig any day. That being said, most of my rigs and cartridges are shitty.

But I can shoot, so shitty is as shitty does.......

Its amazing how gun owners can mimic liberals...."everything is acceptable"

If anyone needs to tell you what caliber is appropriate, you're either bored looking to exercise your lips or you shouldn't have guns.

Yes, but problem is more military than hunting one. 100 years ago the head-acke of generals was "carried ammo" - the more the better. Therefore, the transition to smaller and smaller cartridges that were in any way effective, and large calibers were considered "excessive."
It was not quite right.

I believe in the concept of being undergunned, but not overkill. That is why all of my rifles are "middle of the road" type calibers. I REALLY like 6.5mm anything, so I have 5 different rifles with 5 different 6.5 calibers. I also have 3 308 rifles and 2 30-06 rifles. I just try to match what I shoot to the rifle/caliber, which means I can pick any of my rifles for 90% of the hunting I do.

I would take my 264WM with 140 Partitions on an elk hunt, but probably not so much on a cape buffalo or elephant hunt. But then again, I would not take my 30-06 on those either. I know the 30-06 has been done, but I would not feel comfortable.

And I think that is the point. If YOU are comfortable, have at it. I have no problems with whatever you shoot.

quote:

I didn't vote because there was no option for "should a poster put the actual thread topic in the thread headline so as not to waste people's time opening uninteresting threads?"

A. Why the hell did you make a response if the topic is so uninteresting.

B. Are the terms Over Kill/Under Kill FACT or FALLACY?

Really simple concept. Either you believe in the whole Over Kill/Under Kill concept or you don't.

Where is it stated that you HAD to make a comment of any sort? Care to point that out for the rest of us?

Last time I looked, and someone PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but individual participation on this site is totally voluntary. The PTB's of AR do not force ANYONE to join, nor do they force ANYONE to get involved in ANY discussion.

Brad, if I am wrong on that PLEASE correct me.

This is one o the dumbest all time polls think have ever seen.

Without target specified it's meaningless at best. Every varmint shooter has seen overkill in one form or another. Very light .223 loads are more than capable of vaporizing small varmints. When the target is well and truly dispersed and the pieces are to many and too small to pick up, that plainly is overkill.

I've run into a few Holstein bulls that were flat out tough and as ill tempered as an Cape Buff, and probably a lot more likely to employ devious means to kill you if possible. Roughly the same size too. I'd have never even considered using a deer rifle to dispatch one because it'd seem to be way overkill.

By the same token though, I'd never consider shooting the buff with a 30-30 even though I have no doubt I could make it work just fine.

A deer at 200 yards and beyond is a marginal proposition with a 30-30. I own a 30-30 that will shoot into an inch with Barnes 150s, but a small miss, as little as a couple inches, will move that from a kill shot to a good chance at a lost deer at that range. By definition underkill.


50 yards and in from a tree stand and a .22lr is far more lethal than a bow on deer in competent hands. In less than competent hands t's a recipe for underkill.

The poll is a meaningless exercise.

I have seen a lot of small deer and antelope shot with big bores like the .375, 404, 410 and 458, and those big hard bullets punch a caliber size hole in them and normally waste very little meat, not so with the 243, 270 etc. so those over kill bullets work..I don't use them but don't mind those who do, its not over kill at all.

quote:

I've run into a few Holstein bulls that were flat out tough and as ill tempered as an Cape Buff, and probably a lot more likely to employ devious means to kill you if possible. Roughly the same size too. I'd have never even considered using a deer rifle to dispatch one because it'd seem to be way overkill.

quote:

Originally posted by thecanadian:

quote:

I've run into a few Holstein bulls that were flat out tough and as ill tempered as an Cape Buff, and probably a lot more likely to employ devious means to kill you if possible. Roughly the same size too. I'd have never even considered using a deer rifle to dispatch one because it'd seem to be way overkill.

I had to Google it to figure out.

quote:

This is one o the dumbest all time polls think have ever seen.

If it is so dumb and you responded to it, how dumb do you think that makes you look??????????

If a person chooses to believe in "Over Kill/Under Kill", that is their prerogative, same applies to those that don't believe.

The only thing the poll has done is show that more people don't believe in those concepts, than do believe in them.

The base question still exists however and I do not think anyone can actually/conclusively prove that either of the conditions exist in the real world.

Definition of Kill from the Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary.

a : to deprive of life : cause the death of

b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering.

An animal that has been shot and is not dead, is NOT Under Killed, it is wounded.

One other point that this poll has made, is that no matter how dumb such a discussion may seem to some individuals, it does not stop them from stating an opinion.

posted 24 July 2013 17:12 Hide Post

quote:
This is one o the dumbest all time polls think have ever seen.



If it is so dumb and you responded to it, how dumb do you think that makes you look??????????

I learned long ago not to attribute malice to that which can adequately be explained by stupdity.

You motivation seems obvious in your responses to people who disagree with your preconceived notions.

You're just a plain vanilla asshole.

Am I an asshole, yes. I have never claimed otherwise

You believe in "Over Kill/Under Kill" and that is your prerogative and I have no problem with that. I have not asked you or anyone else to agree with my opinion.

I have just as much right to NOT believe in the whole "Over Kill/Under Kill" concept, as you or anyone else that chooses TO believe in it.

The point is, "Over Kill/Under Kill" is at the most broadest terms, theory at best. The problem as it appears to me, is that you and a few others simply do not believe that anyone has the right to question a concept that has never been factually proven.

It also seems that you and a few others do not believe that a person that has an opinion that differs from yours has the right to defend their opinion.

I have not at any point in this poll asked anyone to agree with me. I have merely stated my opinion on the subject, as have others, your reasons for taking me to task simply because I started the poll, at the least seem irrational.

No one forced you to participate in the poll or the subsequent discussion that has taken place concerning it. If AR did not want members starting polls, we would not be able to.

Each member has the ability to decide which polls/which discussions they wish to get involved in and their individual level of involvement.

My question/observation remains the same, if the poll/question, bothers/offends you so much, and in your own words, so stupid, WHY did you respond?

"Am I an asshole, yes. I have never claimed otherwise

You believe in "Over Kill/Under Kill" and that is your prerogative and I have no problem with that. I have not asked you or anyone else to agree with my opinion.

I have just as much right to NOT believe in the whole "Over Kill/Under Kill" concept, as you or anyone else that chooses TO believe in it.

The point is, "Over Kill/Under Kill" is at the most broadest terms, theory at best. The problem as it appears to me, is that you and a few others simply do not believe that anyone has the right to question a concept that has never been factually proven.

It also seems that you and a few others do not believe that a person that has an opinion that differs from yours has the right to defend their opinion.

I have not at any point in this poll asked anyone to agree with me. I have merely stated my opinion on the subject, as have others, your reasons for taking me to task simply because I started the poll, at the least seem irrational.

No one forced you to participate in the poll or the subsequent discussion that has taken place concerning it. If AR did not want members starting polls, we would not be able to."

When the Whole point of starting a post is to exercise your ability to be an asshole you drag down the site for all concerned.

Be proud of being an asshole if you wish. Be proud of being stupid if you wish.

If you don't like peoples responses to your inanity then for christ's sake go find someone to help you out and listen to them.

If you have nothng more worthwhile than this to contrbute them maybe you should think seriously about posting here at all.

Is a 223 adequate for deer? Just wondering......

When did Saeed or any of the rest of the PTB's on this site put you in charge of who should be on here and who should not.

I also do not recall any notifications from the PTB's of this site, that miles58 had been placed in charge of deciding what another member could or could not post. If you can kindly point out when you were given that authority I would appreciate it.

It was your choice to get involved in this discussion, no one forced you to you did it on your own.

At least, I am man enough to admit to what I am, you seem to enjoy running off at the mouth and hiding behind a computer over something as meaningless as a poll on an internet forum concerning a meaningless topic about a concept that no one can prove or disprove.

I am thru discussing anything with you.

This fucking thread is overkill.....

Why does t put a burr under your saddle that I recognize you for what you freely admit you are?

This is one case where attributing malice where stupidity explains the behavior is somethng no one would fall into.

You are funny.

quote:

Originally posted by 16Bore:
Is a 223 adequate for deer? Just wondering......

I've never seen a deer shoot a 223.

quote:

Is a 223 adequate for deer? Just wondering......

I don't think it is personally, but I have seen quite a few folks kill deer quite handily with it. Is a .22 Hornet adequate for deer?

What you have in your hands at the moment you need it? I had a 375H&H in my hands hunting other things when targets of opportunity presented themselves: Whitetail while hunting Nilgai. Skunks, coons, and a badger while hunting hogs. One gorgeous turkey while hunting hogs. Was it overkill? No the 600 was in the safe

Correct shot placement = quick kills. IMHO, if you take out any north American animals heart or lungs they can only run for as long as they can hold their breath.

I personally prefer above all others, weather it be with firearm or bow, a double lung hit that exits the animal. I like heavy bullets that travel at high speed that expand well and destroy everything they pass through before exiting the animal.

Let me go to the and think about it. Four fingers my dear. roger

CHC: Seems to me that the reason folks are disagreeing on this thread is that you did not present a good definition of "Overkill"

If "overkill" means that some cartridges kill animals "deader" than others, then we'd probably all agree that since there are not degrees of dead, so there is no "overkill"

If "overkill" means "more than you need", then most would probably agree that one doesn't "need" a 375 to cleanly kill a Texas Hill Country (read small) doe.

IMO, a 30/06 is more than what is "needed" for much whitetail hunting. There are other cartridges that will work just as well (maybe not better) which come in rifles that are lighter, handier, provide less recoil, use cheaper bullets, and use less powder. But if a guy wants to use his pet 30/06 (or 458), more power to him (no pun intended.)

In my opinion "Overkill" is a reality and is usually driven by inexperience hysteria.

No to long ago I suggested that someones choice of cartridge for bears was larger than needed. He disagreed and said that if he was in the alders at close range,....etc,.....

My reply was something to the effect of, "Fine, why stop at a .375 when theres the .458, why limit yourself to a .458 when theres the 505, why use a 505 when theres the 700 nitro?"

At some point there is too much gun, whether that means in felt recoil or meat damage, whatever. I don't believe that originally hunting was intended to be a kill sport so much as a food on the table. Bullets or cartridges that destroy food meant for the tabe is "Overkill" and so yes I believe it exists.