The Accurate Reloading Forums
Lower 48 max caliber ????
15 August 2013, 00:11
bartscheLower 48 max caliber ????
Sitting in front of this smart tube A thought crossed my mind.
Is there really any need in the lower "48" for calibers larger than 7 mm ?
roger
Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..
15 August 2013, 00:21
surestrikeI guess the question should be is there any need for anything other than a .308 caliber?
If you've ever hunted elk or moose in thick timber where your shots can be quick and the angles off of broadside there is definitely a need for larger heavier calibers such as the .338, .358, and .375.
My idea of a perfect elk rifle is not the TV version with a gynormous scope and a flat shooting tiny little bullet going hypersonic out of a 28" barrel. I've got no use for these "tourist" rigs. My elk rig is a short fast handling rifle capable of delivering the good even if the goods aren't in a picture perfect cross canyon broadside pose. I love drifting the thick timber for elk where the action is often fast and furious and it takes a bit of horse power to efficiently get the job done.
15 August 2013, 01:00
ztrehWell,apparantly there are some people who can't hit a bull in the a-- at 3 paces, so caliber dosen't come into play.
15 August 2013, 02:41
p dog shooterI found the need for my 416 several times and many times for my other rifles over 7mm.
15 August 2013, 03:25
JonP223....I've read it many times here
15 August 2013, 03:30
ted thornI have no use for anything bigger than my 30-06
________________________________________________
Maker of The Frankenstud Sling Keeper
Proudly made in the USA
Acepting all forms of payment
15 August 2013, 06:29
BigNateNEED? Since when don we have to have a need?
I like a .338 WM in the elk woods with a barrel length of 22". I'd have been just as happy with a .375H&H I'm sure. But I like the way they work on elk when they're spinning around to bust outta there. They'll get to the heart of the matter so to speak.
In open country I'd be fine with a .25-06 or .257Roberts.
15 August 2013, 08:09
f224quote:
Originally posted by surestrike:
I guess the question should be is there any need for anything other than a .308 caliber?
If you've ever hunted elk or moose in thick timber where your shots can be quick and the angles off of broadside there is definitely a need for larger heavier calibers such as the .338, .358, and .375.
My idea of a perfect elk rifle is not the TV version with a gynormous scope and a flat shooting tiny little bullet going hypersonic out of a 28" barrel. I've got no use for these "tourist" rigs. My elk rig is a short fast handling rifle capable of delivering the good even if the goods aren't in a picture perfect cross canyon broadside pose. I love drifting the thick timber for elk where the action is often fast and furious and it takes a bit of horse power to efficiently get the job done.
Dittos...
15 August 2013, 08:14
Scott Kingquote:
Originally posted by ted thorn:
I have no use for anything bigger than my 30-06
I have and see no need either but I do have some. If I were restricted to the lower 48 I doubt I'd own anything other than the -06 and I suppose I'd win some and lose some,.........but thats hunting.
15 August 2013, 08:14
Scott Kingquote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by ted thorn:
I have no use for anything bigger than my 30-06
I have and see no need either but I do have some larger. If I were restricted to the lower 48 I doubt I'd own anything other than the -06 and I suppose I'd win some and lose some,.........but thats hunting.
15 August 2013, 08:18
GrenadierInteresting discussion.
First, let's consider that every state has legal minimum calibers for big game:
For example, 6mm is okay for both deer and elk in Colorado. They require "Rifles using center fire cartridges of .24 caliber or larger, having expanding bullets of at least seventy (70) grains in weight" for deer and "except for elk and moose where the minimum bullet weight is eighty-five (85) grains, and with a rated impact energy one hundred (100) yards from the muzzle of at least one thousand (1000) foot pounds as determined by the manufacturer's rating".
Maine allows rifles shooting .22 Magnum and up for deer: "No firearm may be used which uses .17 or .22 caliber rimfire cartridges, except .22 magnum." But for moose they prohibit all .17 and .22 rimfires, effectively requiring centerfires, and allowing .22 centerfires.
In Washington, "Big game, except cougar, must be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber (6mm) centerfire rifle. Cougar may be hunted with .22 caliber centerfire rifle."
And Wyoming says that for sheep, elk, moose, black bear, and GRIZZLY BEAR(!) it is legal to use "Any center-fire firearm of at least .26 caliber and firing a cartridge of at least two (2) inches in overall length, or any other cartridge of at least .35 caliber and at least one and on-half (1.5) inches in overall length, or a cartridge that generally delivers at least five hundred (500) foot pounds of impact at one hundred (100) yards; using a lead or expanding point bullet"
Second, let's consider what sorts of calibers are reasonable for big game. Is it really reasonable to hunt Wyoming grizzly bear with a .357 Magnum lever rifle or a 6.5 Grendel mini-mauser? What about going after Maine moose with a .22 Hornet? Though legal, few would consider such practices as reasonable.
Third, we need to consider variances in terrain and distance and decide what reasonable cartridges are adequate for use within those variances. A Winchester 94 in .375 might be both legal and reasonable for hunting grizzly, but I don't think the slow moving .375 is adequate for a 300 yard cross canyon shot. Neither would I consider a 7x57 adequate for up-close hunting of grizzly in thick woods. Now, I'll admit I've never hunted grizzly. But I have hunted in grizzly rich terrain, where a bad encounter was a possibility, and the examples above seem pretty self evident to me and I wouldn't plan for either of those situations.
So where does that leave us?
A "lower 48 max caliber" must be legal, it should be reasonable for the game pursued, and common sense dictates it also be adequate for the type of hunting task it will have to perform.
Federal ammunition's recommended usage of the .25-06 is "Varmints, Predators, and Small game". They recommend the 7x57, 7mm Remington Magnum, .308 and .30-06 for "Medium Game". They recommend the .300H&H and .338 Winchester Magnum for "Large and Heavy game". Surely they are applying some sort of criteria similar to the criteria I listed above.
As for me, I'll vote the .300 H&H as the caliber that can reasonably and adequately take care of any "Lower 48" big game scenario I can think of. It may be more than enough for a 75 yard deer shot but it has the flat trajectory required for a 320 yard antelope shot (like last year!). It is the minimum that I would want to carry into grizzly country and is surely enough to soundly best any elk or moose.
Opinions will differ, as will the situations each person will encounter or will plan to encounter. We all know that more than one "Lower 48 max caliber" will emerge from this thread. But as long as each cartridge suggested is legal, reasonable and adequate then it should be fine and going much more would be to exceed the "max".
.
15 August 2013, 08:32
Sagebrush BurnsIf we stayed with just what we needed, most of us would have no more than three or four guns. Where's the fun in that?
15 August 2013, 18:42
Stonecreekquote:
Originally posted by bartsche:
Sitting in front of this smart tube A thought crossed my mind.
Is there really any need in the lower "48" for calibers larger than 7 mm ?
roger
No, there's not, but then you could also draw the line at .277" or .264" and still have enough gun for any game found in the lower 48. After all, Scandinavians happily and successfully shoot lots of moose each year with a 6.5x55.
So the question is not the "need" for a caliber greater than a certain size, but rather the utility of calibers of larger diameter. By going up the scale in caliber you can simultaneously go down the scale in case size and still maintain the same energy. For instance, I think most would agree that a .243 Win makes for a poor moose rifle, but the .358 Win using the same case provides ample energy and bullet weight.
But back to your original question: Would I turn down a hunt for 1000-lb. Roosevelt elk or 1200-lb. Shiras moose just because all I had available was a 7mm Rem Magnum? No, of course not.
15 August 2013, 20:02
Blacktailerquote:
Originally posted by bartsche:
Sitting in front of this smart tube A thought crossed my mind.
Is there really any need in the lower "48" for calibers larger than 7 mm ?
roger
Yes. Nobody needs a 7mm. Everybody needs a 30-06.
Have gun- Will travel
The value of a trophy is computed directly in terms of personal investment in its acquisition. Robert Ruark
15 August 2013, 20:16
Crazyhorseconsulting
1: necessary duty : obligation
2a : a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
b: a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
3: a condition requiring supply or relief
4: lack of the means of subsistence
What enjoyment would ANY of us that like to hunt or own firearms have if we were limited to use an arbitrarily arrived "Needed", maximum caliber for hunting?
How about tossing in Lower 48 maximum magazine capacity???? Wait, my mistake that is already in the works isn't it!
Or how about Lower 48 Maximum Magnifacation for a scope? Or Lower 48 Maximum yardage for shooting at something?
What is so wrong with the concept of allowing each person to pick and choose what they want to use, and as long as they are comfortable with it, no harm/no foul?
How about having a Maximum Lower 48 number of guns a person can own?????? Oh I forgot, that is being worked on also!
I am really having a hard time remembering when anyone twisted anyone else's arm and told them that they could not use the rifle of their choice because an internet Kangaroo Court decreed that certain calibers were too big and must not be used.
Even the rocks don't last forever.
15 August 2013, 22:57
larrysNope, there is no need, although I own a few just for the fun of it.
However, I do not own anything bigger than a 30-06, which I consider "bigger" than my 264WM.
Larry
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson
16 August 2013, 08:16
bartschequote:
Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
1: necessary duty : obligation
2a : a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
b: a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism
3: a condition requiring supply or relief
4: lack of the means of subsistence
What enjoyment would ANY of us that like to hunt or own firearms have if we were limited to use an arbitrarily arrived "Needed", maximum caliber for hunting?
How about tossing in Lower 48 maximum magazine capacity???? Wait, my mistake that is already in the works isn't it!
Or how about Lower 48 Maximum Magnifacation for a scope? Or Lower 48 Maximum yardage for shooting at something?
What is so wrong with the concept of allowing each person to pick and choose what they want to use, and as long as they are comfortable with it, no harm/no foul?
How about having a Maximum Lower 48 number of guns a person can own?????? Oh I forgot, that is being worked on also!
I am really having a hard time remembering when anyone twisted anyone else's arm and told them that they could not use the rifle of their choice because an internet Kangaroo Court decreed that certain calibers were too big and must not be used.
DOUBLE WOW roger
Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..
16 August 2013, 08:59
Grenadierquote:
Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Grenadier
I think you have put way to much though into this.
The equation is D+I+W=2
(
Discussion of rifles and calibers) + (
Idle time) + (
Whiskey sour) =
2 much thought
.
16 August 2013, 21:58
larrysquote:
DOUBLE WOW roger
I think Randall went right past cartridge capability and on to "need" as in restriction. Must have been a long day.
Larry
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson
17 August 2013, 01:51
CrazyhorseconsultingYes Sir, it had been a long day.
Sometimes, with me at least, these hypothetical discussions based on supposed differences between ACTUAL need and PERSONAL CHOICE, get old or redundant add infinitum.
A .243/.257 Roberts/.25-06/7mm-08 or for that matter a .22 Hornet/.22 Mag RF/.22 LRRF will, and has killed EVERY species of animal native to North America, many times.
Why not make ALL .223/.224 cartridges the MAXIMUM caliber for the Lower 48???????
Why not make the .30-06 the ONLY cartridge permissible for ANY/ALL Lower 48 hunting?
Let's take a non-scientific vote, how many hunters frequenting this site would willingly like seeing a MAXIMUM caliber restriction implemented in the Lower 48?
I will cast the first vote, I Damn Sure Do Not Want To See Such A Thing Happen.
This site is open to the opinions of individuals, and my opinion is that as a group, HUNTERS need to grow up and STOP finding lines of division concerning how EACH individual chooses to hunt or the equipment they choose to use, ESPECIALLY, if they are acting in a legal manner and are comfortable with their choices.
Even the rocks don't last forever.
17 August 2013, 06:18
p dog shooterquote:
Originally posted by Grenadier:
quote:
Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Grenadier
I think you have put way to much though into this.
The equation is D+I+W=2
(
Discussion of rifles and calibers) + (
Idle time) + (
Whiskey sour) =
2 much thought
Thanks for the LOL I needed that
17 August 2013, 07:43
kjjm4I have a sneaking suspicion that putting a limit on how big of a cartridge is legal would result in a measurable reduction in the number of animals that get wounded and lost. Lets face it, there are a lot of people out there shooting big magnums that they're terrified of. I can think of several people that I've hunted with who'd be better of if they traded their 300 mags for 30-30s. Not saying that everybody who shoots a big gun is scared of it, but it happens a lot.
17 August 2013, 11:29
Dan HI any caliber chosen must meet three criteria:
1. Comply with state laws (most caliber ones seem to be there for a reason).
2. Respect the game hunted and the way you are hunting it. Shooting an animal at 20 yards from a blind is very different from an elk across a canyon. I am tired of folks using the Scandinavian Elk example and overlooking the fact that their moose are substantially smaller (at least than those here in AK) and often shot at close range after being brought to bay by dogs......So yes, you can hit a big target like a moose at good range, and it will die. Do you really want it to get out well into the swamp before its lungs fill up and it dies?
3. Respect where you hunt. The game you seek may not be the governing factor for the gun you carry. In everywhere I have hunted in the lower 48 it was....just keep it in mind. Here in AK it matters and is always ignored by the gun-writing experts.
Cheers,
Dan
18 August 2013, 08:39
bartschequote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
Originally posted by bartsche:
Sitting in front of this smart tube A thought crossed my mind.
Is there really any need in the lower "48" for calibers larger than 7 mm ?
roger
No, there's not, but then you could also draw the line at .277" or .264" and still have enough gun for any game found in the lower 48. After all, Scandinavians happily and successfully shoot lots of moose each year with a 6.5x55.
So the question is not the "need" for a caliber greater than a certain size, but rather the utility of calibers of larger diameter. By going up the scale in caliber you can simultaneously go down the scale in case size and still maintain the same energy. For instance, I think most would agree that a .243 Win makes for a poor moose rifle, but the .358 Win using the same case provides ample energy and bullet weight.
But back to your original question: Would I turn down a hunt for 1000-lb. Roosevelt elk or 1200-lb. Shiras moose just because all I had available was a 7mm Rem Magnum? No, of course not.
As usual, good response.
roger
Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..
18 August 2013, 21:28
Wstrnhuntrquote:
Originally posted by bartsche:
Sitting in front of this smart tube A thought crossed my mind.
Is there really any need in the lower "48" for calibers larger than 7 mm ?
roger
Need? No, not really.. The term prudent comes to mind though when the subject involves species like Bears, Elk, Moose, Bison, Hogs, rabid attack Monte Python rabbits, and so on..
Bored waiting for hunting season Roger?
18 August 2013, 21:48
Grenadierquote:
Originally posted by Dan H:
I any caliber chosen must meet three criteria:
1. Comply with state laws (most caliber ones seem to be there for a reason).
2. Respect the game hunted and the way you are hunting it. Shooting an animal at 20 yards from a blind is very different from an elk across a canyon. I am tired of folks using the Scandinavian Elk example and overlooking the fact that their moose are substantially smaller (at least than those here in AK) and often shot at close range after being brought to bay by dogs......So yes, you can hit a big target like a moose at good range, and it will die. Do you really want it to get out well into the swamp before its lungs fill up and it dies?
3. Respect where you hunt. The game you seek may not be the governing factor for the gun you carry. In everywhere I have hunted in the lower 48 it was....just keep it in mind. Here in AK it matters and is always ignored by the gun-writing experts.
Cheers,
Dan
That is surprisingly like what I wrote. So, I see we are in agreement.
.
05 September 2013, 22:01
Bill/OregonHmmm. So why do I feel compelled to rebarrel a Springfield to .35 Whelen?
There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t.
– John Green, author
06 September 2013, 00:41
bartschequote:
Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Hmmm. So why do I feel compelled to rebarrel a Springfield to .35 Whelen?
Because ,Bill, you have a need.
roger
Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..
07 September 2013, 03:04
AtkinsonOut of necessity? I belive the 7x57 will do for anything on this planet under proper circumstances, but only if one didn't have a 30-06, but I don't know anyone that doesn't have a 30-06, that would be akin to sodomy..
Ray Atkinson
Atkinson Hunting Adventures
10 Ward Lane,
Filer, Idaho, 83328
208-731-4120
rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com
07 September 2013, 03:28
Crazyhorseconsultingquote:
I don't know anyone that doesn't have a 30-06, that would be akin to sodomy..
That is a very rude statement. I personally do not have a .30-06/.270 or .308. But that is a personal choice. I do believe that a person can't go wrong if they pick a .30-06/.270 or .308 to hunt with, I just do not believe they are the be all/end all, and wouldn't it be a pitiful world if all we had to choose from were the .30-06/.270 and .308.
Even the rocks don't last forever.
07 September 2013, 04:08
scottfromdallasOh no, I'm a sodomite. I've never owned a 30-06.
07 September 2013, 04:09
Bill/OregonBartsche, my enabling amigo, I like the way you think ...'
There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t.
– John Green, author
07 September 2013, 05:55
Biggs3009.3x62 would be my idea as a max caliber for the lower 48.
Start young, hunt hard, and enjoy God's bounty.
07 September 2013, 06:35
CrazyhorseconsultingHow about just for the fun of it we discuss the maximum number of guns a person in the Lower 48 can own?
Even the rocks don't last forever.
07 September 2013, 08:23
craigsterquote:
Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
How about just for the fun of it we discuss the maximum number of guns a person in the Lower 48 can own?
As many as a person wants. End of discussion.
07 September 2013, 08:51
pagosawingnutI have taken game in the lower 48 with calibers ranging from .243 all the way to .416 Rem Mag. I like using the different calibers and seeing what they do, or don't do. Elk with .30-06 all the way to .416. Put the bullet in the right place and they die as they are supposed to, although there is less meat damage with the bigger calibers and heavier bullets. Use whatever you are comfortable with.
08 September 2013, 07:04
Crazyhorseconsultingquote:
As many as a person wants. End of discussion.
Then why has this discussion gone this far?????????????
If people are going to be limited to a certain approved caliber, do they need more than one rifle in that caliber? No!
Do they WANT more rifles in that caliber? Maybe, maybe not.
If this a hypothetical discussion, then hypothetically, why should there be a limit on the diameter of the caliber a person chooses to use?
Even the rocks don't last forever.
08 September 2013, 20:52
PaulSIf I were to set the limits It might be like this:
minimum caliber: .05
maximum caliber: .95
minimum energy: enough for the hunter to get the job done, at the range the hunter is shooting, on the animal being hunted.
That way it is left up to the individual to take the responsibility of making a wise choice based on his needs.
I actually see no need for restrictions at all.
Speer, Sierra, Lyman, Hornady, Hodgdon have reliable reloading data. You won't find it on so and so's web page.
09 September 2013, 00:55
bartschequote:
Originally posted by bartsche:
Sitting in front of this smart tube A thought crossed my mind.
Is there really any need in the lower "48" for calibers larger than 7 mm ?
roger
To answer my own question ""YES"" and the need is personal satisfaction.
Your personal test scores will be placed in a sealed file.
roger
Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..
