based on the responses on the thread for 300 Mags for deer, you folks have really opened my eyes.

I am going once again to Montana soon to prairie dog hunt. Many of you liked the 300 for Mule Deer and Whitetail in the West, because you might need the extra power if you ran into something dangerous like a grizzly or black bear.
Since Montana has alot of those, I really should consider that a minimum SAFE caliber....

I don't want to get caught with a "pissy" little 223 or something.

I am really in a quandry tho. The largest bullet that I can get in a 30 caliber is 220 grains. However in the 338, I can get up to 275 grains if I can still find some old Speers, or also considering the 300 grain Sierra Match.

Either of these loads ought to be able to down a prairie dog at 300 to 500 yds safely.

Thanks to the input of considerable people on here, I don't want to get caught being undergunned a bit. I am having some of my other rifles re barreled to 375 and 416, because I really don't know if I might get into trouble and will need a bigger caliber like that.

A wounded prairie dog is one hell of an animal to have attacking you.

Now that I have seen the light, the gentleman from Alaska won't think I am an ass anymore! Lucky me.

Oh, the lift kit and the 37 inch mudders are on order for the pickup also.

Thanks to all the guys who helped me see the light.

My JC Higgins 300 in already packed and MY Thomas Magnum 338 will be back from the gunsmith tomorrow.!!!

[ 07-08-2003, 23:21: Message edited by: seafire ]

Seafire, you know you can get a 240 grain MatchKing in 30 caliber but after reading the whole "MatchKing Thread" I'm not sure if it is enough bullet for P. dogs or to much for big brownes

if you see fire, there must be smoke!!!

Nice leg pull.

ROTFLMAO!!

undergunned indeed

No way does any good rifleman need a .338. Most hunters who use them are just trying to be macho, and few are really sportsmen.

I know from experience. I once saw some hunters in the woods being jerks, and they were carrying .338's...

Wait, I think I saw this same post somewhere before....

David

Seafire- I hear Red Ryder is making a hell of a bb gun these days, maybe you would feel more comfortable sitting behind one of those?

Quote from Seafire "Name calling in any direction doesn't make anyone look any smarter or their target any stupider ." -With that statement, I think you managed accomplished that all on your own. You did all the work for us.

A blanket statement that a particular caliber, especially a medium bore like a .300, is too large for deer is plain ignorance.

You do sound like an ass, you sound like my ass right after a nice mexican meal...

I just hope some of us people in the lower 48 aspire to having our shit together as much as people in Alaska think they have!

( 15 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag)!

Ak enviro, and the rest of those " Alaskans" (where men are men and the Moose are nervous)
If you guys want to think I am an ass, because I think you don't need your 300s for deer hunting, and the only excuse you have to justify it is bring up "there might be a bear" ( it was about deer hunting, not bear hunting)

Well my ass just wanted to pass on, that you can feel free to put your lips on my ass and fell free to let those lips just push my ass right on out the door.

YOu guys use tennis rackets for fly swatters? Probably, because their might be a bear while you are swatting flies.......

Seafire,

If I recall correctly the other thread was not whether a .300 mag was required for deer but only if anyone used it on deer, and if it might be too much.

To answer the question you now raise, the .300 mag is not required for either deer or prairie dogs, nor even the great bears. Is it too much? IMHO there is no such thing as too much gun for the animal. There is only adequate and inadequate. However, a .300 mag is too much gun for some shooters. For me it is just right. With the 190 SMK it fits all my requirements for min wind drift, flat trajectory, and the versatility to take mice or moose to ridiculous range. I can also shoot all my left over gov surplus 173 gr fmjbt sniper/match, 152 gr AP steel core bt, and 147 gr fmjbt. Also, .30 cal is the most popular in the U.S. so the individuals that consider it excessive are in the minority.

I shoot varmints with my .300 WSM because it helps me work out the trajectory and wind drift for real hunting. It is currently sighted at 775 yds with the 190 gr Match King where the hold under for 100 yds is precisely 5 mil, the top tick mark in my IOR 2.5-10x 42mm illuminated MP8 scope with a 1st optical plane reticle. My IOR fixed 16x 42mm MP8 is also sighted at 775 yds for continuity. The ranges where the hold offs (also done in mils) for wind are closer to the horizontal stadia. I have the hold unders and overs worked out to 1000 yds, as well as the come-ups if I choose to dial it on. BTW, the scopes remove and reinstall on the Picatinny rail with absolutely no POI shift.

[ 06-29-2003, 23:01: Message edited by: RuffHewn ]

The person who opened the other thread did ask if the .300 is good for deer or too much. He also asked what loads people used.

Seafire had this to say:
"Contrary to this crew, I think the 300 Win is way too big on deer, anywhere. The main appeal is for those with too much testosterone.."
"I just think a good rifleman does not need a 300 mag."

He further went on to stereotype .300wm users as unsafe buffoons and related some completely off-topic stories as well as throwing in jacked up 4X4 trucks. Not sure where all this came from, but these type of generalizations are off the wall.

He also started this thread to get a little attention, using the ".300wm for prairie dogs" topic. Turns out RuffHewn happens to use one for just that. seafire isn't looking too smart.

At least in my response to the original post, I mentioned seeing 40 or so deer killed with the .300wm, and also included the grain and type of bullet. I figured that would help answer the original question better than rambling on about some assholes I saw in the woods once who happened to be carrying this caliber.

Granted not everyone hunts in bear country. Perhaps that isn't a good justification for other people to carry the cartridge for deer. On the other hand, accusing people who use this caliber of doing so because of too much testosterone is assinine. I suspect there are lots of people in the states hunting deer with .300 winchester, .300 weatherby, .300RUM, .300WSM, .300 H&H, etc. Probably because they enjoy shooting the caliber, enjoy loading bullets for it, and know that it will kill the animals they are pursuing..does anyone need to use the .300's for deer? Well, I'd hate to be the one to define what others need. I'll leave that to seafire.

Also, stereotyping Alaska hunters because of something I post, which he did prior to another Alaskan posting...is simple-minded as well. Bottom line, seafire acts like a little kid.

Good hunting RuffHewn. I'd love to varmint hunt someday, sounds like fun. Shooting your .300 out to 700yds and beyond is something I think sounds fun, too.

seafire- you said "Instead of this post being about a 300 mag for deer, it should be do you have the ability to handle a 300 Mag....".

Well, if you want to start a thread like that, go ahead. But that isn't what BlairR was asking, is it?

I still say you sound like an ass.
David

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary: OVERKILL= "An excess of something (as a quantity or an action) beyond what is required or suitable for a particular purpose"

I personally have never heard of a deer (or any other animal) that was too dead. If we want to take this literally, mabye we should borrow a couple of hay forks from our buddy Seafire (I'm sure he has plenty to go around) next time we head in to the woods. If not, we'll just sharpen a few sticks.

I've killed plenty of deer with my .300. Look at the three most common kill shots; Head, Neck, Heart/Lung.
Will a .300 kill a deer in any three of those? Yes
Will most any caliber kill a deer in any of those? Yes
Any misplaced shot can destroy meat, will a misplaced .300 shot destroy more meat than something like a .270? maybe
Will it cause a substantially more amount of damage? Absolutely not

I shoot a .300 because it is a good all round caliber for my area. I'm comfortable with it, and I'm accurate with it.
It has nothing to do with testosterone levels.

As with most, I also agree that a 300mag is not required to kill a deer but will definitely do the job. I also think that if the shooter can shoot a 300 well, then why not use it? Then there is the versatility factor - I use mine for everything from groundhogs (125gr. Ballistic Tip) to Elk and Moose (180gr. Partitions). Of course, there are many other calibers that can do the same, this just happens to be my choice and it has put bunches of meat in my freezer over the years.

What I like about taking my 300 Winnie to the prairie dog shoot is that you don't have to hit them for fun. Just shoot at thier feet and see how high in the air you can fling them. Kinda reminds me of PD skeet. And yea I know I'm sick.

Count me in as a happy .300 Weatherby Mag deer hunter. I love using it and haven't experienced any hunting related problems with it. I handload for it, shoot it a lot, and can handle it quite well. Of course it's not needed, but I enjoy shooting it and that's all the excuse I need for using it.

Never been a magnum fan, though I would have been had I ever come across a reason to trade in my 280 for a 7mag or re-bore a 25-06 to 257 WM.

One of my favorite "magnum stories" was back when the 375 Ultra Mag came out. I was watching a show on ESPN or something and this guy from Remington noodled a buff at 75 meters or so - and of course the it went down. Anyway, he seemed excessively pleased with the performance -I guess he did not see the irony in extolling the "killing power" merits of a round more powerful than a round that has been downing buff just as quickly for the last 100 years or so - namely the 375 HH, or even the 9.3x62 for that matter.

Now don't get me wrong, too light can definitely be a problem. I just get the sense that over the past decades what is considered "too light" has grown to include many powerhouses of yesteryear - and the animals aren't any tougher now, are they? (Maybe they are and I haven't heard...)
There was a time when the 250-3000 was considered a real fireball. Now most consider it gopher medicine at best, and that's only if you're shooting downhill with a tailwind.

IMO, it's all about what the individual shooter prefers. I have one request of Magnum users - don't go being all proud about the killing power of your _____ Mag. For nearly every magnum (with the possible exception of the true big bores) there is a lowly standard catridge that will do the job just as well with less weight, shorter barrel, less recoil, less muzzle blast, less barrel wear, less powder consumption, and while holding more rounds in the magazine.

If dead is dead, why use more when a bit less will do the job just as well? I'm not going to pay MSRP when I can get for invoice.

With the onset of Monkey pox I think I'll put the 416 Taylor away for my PD rifle as I don't want to stalk to close. I agree with Handloader it is fun to launch them with those big heavy 400 gr solids. I gues I'll be forced to watch them come unglued from a safe distance of 250 yards or more from my pissy 223 or 22/250.

i'd go with a 50bmg myself, ballistically superior to to three hundred over a mile just my .02$, plus they are a lot more pleasant to shoot multiple rounds with like needed on a p-dog hunt

Seafire,

quote:

---

( 15 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag)!

---

Now THAT"S funny.

300 WSM, 220 gr Nosler partition, IMR 7828...2762 fps...whack a bear.

300 WSM, 55 gr Hornady .224 BT in a .308 sabot, AA 2230...4400 fps...whack a mole

0.50 MOA....priceless!!