...the sissy-swamp of chamberings and calibres (a swedish joke that's not too important to understand, really...).

I saw a thread about the venerable 6,5x55, a notorious killer that is responsible for maybe 40% of the moose killed in Sweden yearly. The ones that have used it for real testifies on its tremendous killing abilities. Indeed.

What makes me think.. Why this need of "yes, it's true, a old fashioned chambering can REALLY kill, you don't need a kickass-super-short-long-magnum with boattail premium bullets for white tail deer in the woodlands"?

Now get real. The thing that kills is a bullet of a certain construction, at a certain velocity, hitting a certain part of the animal. The chambering is obsolete once the bullet has left the barrel. The optics is far more important for practical hunting purposes than the chambering. So is the gun configuration. And dont get me started about the hunter

I've been there myself, pondering wether to buy a .270 or a .308, maybe a this or a that? Looking back a few years now, when I open my hunting diary at the chapter "game I've bagged that would have been lost using a different chambering"... that chapter is all empty.

This chambering - volocity - trajectory... is nothing but a distraction. I'm leaving this wasteland of academical ifs and buts and now I settle for three:

.222Rem in a lightweight package for daily strolls
.308Win in a long range high performance gun
9,3x62 in a shortened sileced woods gun.

All the game I've ever lost because of a technical reason have been due to my own - I hope occasional - crappyness as a hunter. Never the chambering. Sometimes the bullet. Mostly because of having the wrong gun with me, wrong optics or something.

So... maybe this forum is cut the wrong way. Far more interesting than small, medium, large bore would be a selection of the uses of firearms.

- Bushwacker
- Stationary long range
- Casual stroll, small game gun
- Dangerous game

Waddya think?

All misspellings today are due to Grönstedt's Cognac:

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:

Now get real. The thing that kills is a bullet of a certain construction, at a certain velocity, hitting a certain part of the animal. The chambering is obsolete once the bullet has left the barrel. The optics is far more important for practical hunting purposes than the chambering. So is the gun configuration. And dont get me started about the hunter

Interesting post.

I’m not sure I get all the points you’re making but I can agree with this paragraph as long as “construction†includes the weight of the bullet too.

Interesting forum names too.

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:
The chambering is obsolete once the bullet has left the barrel.

Oh, oh, if this was really true, the industry migth loose a lot of business...

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:
The optics is far more important for practical hunting purposes than the chambering.

Look at what those professional hunters in the Bavarian use to kill sometimes several hundred pieces of game a year. Many shoot just an old Mauser 98, Mannlicher or similar, rusty, beaten up and worn of. Topped however in ALL cases by some very expensive Zeiss, Svarovski or Schmidt&Bender scopes.

Just learn to shoot a good aperture sight and you don't need the scope, just a good binocular.

For the kind of light conditions we use to hunt here, the distances over fields and in the mountains and the size of our most common game roe deer that would not be so practical.

Even though I use 10x40 mm binoculars sometimes even with a very bright rifle scope I can't shoot game I see through the binos.

I use open sights on a .22 lr to teach my kids.

HerrBerg,

All true, IMHO. Once the hunter chooses one caliber out of the dozens that are suitable for the quarry, all of the rest of hunting, at least 95% of it, is a function of stalking and shooting ability.

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:
...All the game I've ever lost because of a technical reason have been due to my own - I hope occasional - crappyness as a hunter. Never the chambering. Sometimes the bullet. Mostly because of having the wrong gun with me, wrong optics or something...

A bigger cartridge is much more forgiving in case of small aiming/shooting mistakes; since I'm only a fairly good shooter, I prefer quite big cartridges. My current minimum is the 270WSM for roe deers and chamois and my usual hunting cartridge is the 300WM with 180/200 gr. bullets for bigger game, like boars and stags. It's certainly a sacrilege, but I would never shoot a moose with a 6.5x55

HerrBerg---- roger

i'd go witha 22" 280 remington. short enough, light enough and w/ handloads more than capable of everything the 7 mag-7-30 waters is capable of doing.

quote:

Originally posted by wildboar:
A bigger cartridge is much more forgiving in case of small aiming/shooting mistakes; since I'm only a fairly good shooter, I prefer quite big cartridges.

You will most likely shoot better with milder cartridges.

It is also cheaper and less painfull to practice more with them than with the magnums. I admit to some accute attacks of magnumitis once on a while, too, spent probably too much money on rifles I do possibly not really need but of courdse enjoy owning...

+1

I for one like hunting with cartridges that make people ask "what the hell is that?" I could care less if it is old, new, obsolete, or on the chopping block as long as it gets the job done and is a little different.

It is amazing how many arguements go unresolved on these forums on the subject of this vs. that cartridge, when theres usualy not a nickels worth of difference in them.

You are spot on HerrBerg!

I could certainly trim my rifles down to 3 for the yearly hunting I do around here. (Oregon) I would probably go .257 Roberts 30,06 and .338 win.
But i like rifles as well as I like hunting.
Some of my rifles I bought just case I like the rifle. I think i have 15 rifles in about 11 chamberings at the moment.
truth be know not one of them can do anything my 06 can,t unless you get a long way from home.
...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
HerrBerg,

All true, IMHO. Once the hunter chooses one caliber out of the dozens that are suitable for the quarry, all of the rest of hunting, at least 95% of it, is a function of stalking and shooting ability.

What he said.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Jones:
... truth be know not one of them can do anything my 06 can,t unless you get a long way from home.

What he said, too.

Another vote perhaps for the 375 H&H?

I'd be content with nothing more than a 6.5x55mm in a modern, lightweight rifle with a normal length barrel. That would kill all the deer and black bear I could hope to encounter. Honestly, yes, that could easily be a 7mm-08 or a .30-06. The chambering is never really the question, but more my ability. There is no rational reason to own 10 middle bore rifles (which I don't, but would if I could) but we do anyways, just because we can.

I just try to follow the golden rule "Guns are like jello, theres always room for more!"

SFC E7 (retired)

ireload2,
Thank you!! Using the aperture/peep sight is almost a lost art, but for those shooting matches or service rifles. Like the old gentleman I hunted with for sometime in Alaska used to say,"who in the hell wants a tube, mount, springs, screws, glass, gadget attached to your rifle...." His point being that most big game are or should be shot well within a range that the hunter knows he can hit the target correctly. An aperture rear sight will handle that very well indeed and about as durable as an anvil. Leupold, Burris, Weaver, etc. would be very sad indeed if hunters used "peep" sights.