The last thread on using the 270win for elk makes me wonder how everyone feels about cartridge selection for a given useage.Do you prefer to use the minimum cartridge that will get the job done,a middle of the road cartridge,or a cartridge with a lot more power than is required for the given usage?
I have seen many big game animals killed with cartridges ranging from the .223 to the 338win mag for deer and the 243win to the 375h&h for moose and elk.
With perfect shot placement under ideal conditions,the performance on game is actually very similar for most cartridges.
However when a hit is marginal,or at a raking angle,the larger more powerful cartridges are more effective at providing a quick clean kill.
Since we as shooters aren't perfect,I prefer to use cartridges that do have extra power to add a little insurance,for when things don't go exactly as planned.For deer I like to use cartridges from the .257"s to the 7mm magnums and for elk and moose I prefer to use cartridges from the 7mmmagnums to the 300 magnums.

Good topic. And quite frankly, I have mixed emotions about it. By no means am I anywhere near experienced as many of the members here but I've killed elk, bear, a pile of deer, and antelope.

I think we need to define some items, like "kill-ability," "efficiency," and "effectiveness."

When I rifle hunt, my expectations are quite simple. I want the animal to drop where it is standing. I can kill it with a lung shot but I prefer to shatter bone and spine.

Since I've taken quite a few head of game with my 300 RUM and the 200 AB, I can say this, not one animal went anywhere after the bullet hit it, even with quartering away shots into the soft tissue only. I cannot say the same for my 7 mag, 30.06, or 270---with soft tissue only shots.

One riflesmith I used answers your query quite frankly; he uses the minimum caliber for the job. He uses a 22-6mm for deer and has taken plenty of them and antelope beyond 300 yards. But he also reports that very few were 'bang-flop.'

In the last 5 years I've rethought my shot placement. Now, every chance I get, I put the bullet in the high front shoudler on broadside shots with tough bullets and since then, "cartridge per usage" really isn't an issue. My 270/130 TSX combo will take a bull elk at 300 yards and dump it. This is the lightest bullet I currently hunt with.

The only time I'll use my 300 RUM on something smaller than moose or elk is when I expect a longer shot. In those cases I do prefer more lead to hit harder downrange. I prefer the longer, higher BC bullets at fast speeds. That's my preference.

Stubblejumper ----- I tend to shoot chamberings that are on the optimum side, and it is mainly from the safety angle for me. ----- Deer sized game I have used my starting rifle an iron sighted 30-30 (still have it and still use it)and after that everything under the sun up to .340 Wby. ----- For larger than Deer sized animals I started with a .300 Winny for Elk, then Brown Bear and Caribou. It served me extremely well, even in a tight situation with my first Brown Bear. That experience taught me bigger is better, the next trip to Big Bear country I packed a .340 Wby then next time a .358 STA. Why is bigger better in dangerous game country, simply because you may not be offered that perfect angle for the shot and your backup or buddy may not perform correctly, leaving you to your own best remedies. You wont find me hunting Kodiak Island for Deer and packing a Deer rifle, even a large Deer rifle. ----- When I got the urge to hunt Africa, everyone said .375 H&H to start with, but I already had something better in the .358 STA, so I went with the .416 Remington and it was perfect for the Buffalo and something bigger in the future if I so choose. ------ Shooting whatever chambering you so choose enough to become instinctive in it's use is a big part of the equation, if you can't handle the bigger stuff, shoot what you are comfortable with when the nut cutting comes. A good question and I am sure you will get some good answers. By the way Alberta is one of the most beautiful places in the world and I am coming back this September. Good shooting.

I did not even take into account the chance of running into a grizzly when I started this thread,but it certainly does exist for some of us including myself.In that situation,I would feel much safer carrying my 300ultramag shooting the 180gr tsx than I would be carrying a 25-06 or 270win with any load.

You can kill kudu with a 243 easily if you can pick your shot. If, however, you are on a one week hunt, you might have to take a bad angle shot or none at all, in which case a 375 will be about right. So, depends on lots of factors.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Good topic. And quite frankly, I have mixed emotions about it. By no means am I anywhere near experienced as many of the members here but I've killed elk, bear, a pile of deer, and antelope.

I think we need to define some items, like "kill-ability," "efficiency," and "effectiveness."

When I rifle hunt, my expectations are quite simple. I want the animal to drop where it is standing. I can kill it with a lung shot but I prefer to shatter bone and spine.

Since I've taken quite a few head of game with my 300 RUM and the 200 AB, I can say this, not one animal went anywhere after the bullet hit it, even with quartering away shots into the soft tissue only. I cannot say the same for my 7 mag, 30.06, or 270---with soft tissue only shots.

One riflesmith I used answers your query quite frankly; he uses the minimum caliber for the job. He uses a 22-6mm for deer and has taken plenty of them and antelope beyond 300 yards. But he also reports that very few were 'bang-flop.'

In the last 5 years I've rethought my shot placement. Now, every chance I get, I put the bullet in the high front shoudler on broadside shots with tough bullets and since then, "cartridge per usage" really isn't an issue. My 270/130 TSX combo will take a bull elk at 300 yards and dump it. This is the lightest bullet I currently hunt with.

The only time I'll use my 300 RUM on something smaller than moose or elk is when I expect a longer shot. In those cases I do prefer more lead to hit harder downrange. I prefer the longer, higher BC bullets at fast speeds. That's my preference.

You have figured it out pretty well in my opion

I am a firm believer in being overgunned instead of undergunned. As others have said, you are not always going to get that "perfect shot". Besides, I like knowing that if something out where the animl is standing, is not exactly as I am seeing thru the scope, the bullet will produce an acceptable exit wound for a good blood trail. The more air and fluid you let out of a motor, the quicker it shuts down. JMO

My thoughts:
1)The largest caliber you can shoot accurately, for the job at hand.
2) Shot placement kills. (You may want to argue this but my experience tells me otherwise.)
3)A good bullet is very, very important. The bullet should match the game being hunted. (Just read the volumes in this forum on bullet selection.)

A 338 Win. is a great elk caliber. My experience in guiding has taught me that there are some shooters that can not keep a 6 inch group at 100 yards, off a bench rest with one, let alone in the field. My opinions on this were confirmed by the PH I met in Namibia, and many other professional guides over the years.

Now, if you can shoot a heavy recoiling caliber accurately, more power to you. If you can shoot a powerful rifle well you will make your guide happy.

But be realistic. Do you avoid practicing with your "bigger caliber" because of recoil? Can you actually shot it in any position that the hunting situation calls for? Can you shoot it prone? Sitting? Off-hand?

Keeping a 470 NE in a two inch group at 100yds from a prone position is not necessary for its intended use. But you might need to make a 300 yd shot with a 375 H&H , so can you do it off-hand? Sitting? Or maybe you'd be better off sliding the rifle over your backpack and squeezing one off prone. Does your nose bleed just thinking about doing that?

Personally, I'd rather see accuracy, (good shot placement) than misplaced power.

Now, before anyone gets all worked up, try to remember that the readers and contributors to this forum are bloody serious shooters and hunters. As such I'd suspect that many of you shoot a great deal and have an above average tolerance for recoil.

I'm another hunter that would rather have too much gun than not enough. The term "overkill" is just as stupid as the saying, "at what point in the animals death did the bullet fail". Dead is dead & quicker is better.
I look for a bullet/cartridge combo that give me as big a hole w/ as close to complete penetration as possible from any reasonable angle. Deer size game I have shot w/ my .338-06/210grNP are often bang flops or very short runs. My buffalo taken w/ my .404j/380grNF didn't run at all. That kind of performance makes you a believer. Yes I know there are guys that have take 200 deer w/ the .243, but I'm sure most shots were perfect broadside shots or neck shots, nice if you can get them, but I don't get that many days in the field & my opportunities are usually shoot now or don't shoot at all.
There are so many cartridge choices I just don't see the need to try & make a .243 an elk rifle or a .416 a deer rifle (although the .416 makes a good close cover deer round w/ the right bullet). In the end, everyone needs to hunt w/ what they think works for them.

I use the biggest gun that I can most of the time. When I started woods hunting with the .358 things went well.

I started a topic here a couple of years ago titled something like "The Case For A Large Humane Wound"

The topic came to no conclusion at that time. I still think that was because of a conflict of personalitites some of whom have departed the field.

The Case For A Large Humane Wound

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:
...Do you prefer to use the minimum cartridge that will get the job done,a middle of the road cartridge,or a cartridge with a lot more power than is required for the given usage?...

Hey SJ, I'd imagine you know my response will always be better than "minimum needed".

I prefer to Reverse Engineer the situation by starting with a Cartridge which is known to be "more power than is required", shoot a bunch of Game with it, pay close attention to the reactions, pay close attention to the innard damage and then try different Bullet designs and weights.

Once I go through 6-8 different Bullets and weights on 25 head or so for each Bullet, I'll have a good idea about how tenacious the Game is and how good those Bullets are for that Game. Then I can generally scale-back on the Cartridge to something you described as "middle of the road".

Go small enough in the Caliber, light enough in the Bullet and when a good number of kills have been made, it becomes self-evident that smaller Calibers just aren't as capable of making consistent, clean, 1-shot kills as the larger ones.

i love my .243, and i use it for most of my deer hunting as it"s a lot easier to carry than my .308. The .243 is the legal minimum here for deer, and many would see the .308 as optimum, and that"s what a lot of my friends use.
Calibre choice/bullet choice/shot placement/effective range/etc, are all facets of the same discussion. It"s down to the individual"s attitude and prefference.
I like to heart/lung shoot everything. If i am not offered that good steady shot, then i just don"t shoot. If i think the shot it too far, the deer is"nt standing the way i would like it to, there"s another deer behind it, or whatever, if i can"t confidently squeeze the trigger, sure that i can take out the lungs, and preferably the heart as well, then i let the deer walk.
I have shot far more deer with the .243 than i have with the .308, and i have never once hit a deer and lost it. I"ve had them run further when hit with the .308 than the .243, but i don"t put that down to calibre, it was just that individual animal and situation.
Shot placement kills, end of story.
good shooting

I tend to go one notch over optimum in terms of bullet construction, caliber, and/or weight when shooting in Africa, plus I always shoot for the top of the heart. I figure I've got two layers of insurance that tend to put the game down within visual range, which has mostly been the result.

Thus in the cartridges I mostly use I lean on the Nosler Partition (Protected Point if available) or the Woodleigh SP (again, Protected Point if available). Thus, for example, in .308 I generally rely on the 180-grain NP. In 9.3x62 it's the 286-grain NP. In .376 Steyr and .375 H&H it's the 300-grain Woodleigh.

The two exceptions among my regularly-used hunting cartridges are my deer hunting ones--the .260 Rem and 7x65R--where I've sought the optimum solutions. While I'm still using a Nosler Partition in the .260, it's the 125-grain version instead of the heavier ones, and in a Remington Model Seven Scout. I've gradually worked my way down to that weight at a moderate velocity (2700 fps) to tailor it to the hunting situation we typically face, which is shots between 20 and 60 yards. Similarly, for the 7x65R, which is housed in a Merkel K-1 kiplaufbuchse, I've used a 140-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip at under 2400 fps. Both have dropped deer in their tracks or with runs of under 20 yards with top of heart hits, have very light recoil in short and light rifles.

If it has the numbers .338 in it that's what I like. I've killed stuff with 270 and 30-06's with standard bullets just fine but lets say it's 2 days before the end of the season, you haven't laid eyes on a bear yet and one just stepped out into view and is now walking dirrectly away from you, Hmmmm, if I wasn't using a 338WinMag with AFrames I may not try it but because I've got the equipment I drive one from stern to stem snd spit the heart in two... Say good night Bucky.

.338 and don't look back for me. But, a bullet like the X brings the smaller rounds more up the par.

Good topic. Over the years I have become convinced that optimum is the way to go. Like NBHunter, I want a gun in my hands that will get the job done on a less than perfect shot angle. Optimum has changed with the really good bullets we have to work with now. Penetration and expansion are available in the same bullet. For a lot of hunters that I have worked with, optimum definitely is not magnum. If you can't shoot a .300 well, an'06 or even a .308 will be deadlier because the hunter is more accurate with it. My favorite for elk? .300 magnum shooting premium 200 gr. bullets right at 3k fps. That rifle has always shot sub-moa for me, way out there.

I think this is a personal choice...

But if one is carrying a cartridge that they question whether it can do the job or not... should n't be out in the woods hunting with it...

It all still boils down to shot placement... regardless of the rest of the academic arguments people propose all the time...

cheers
seafire

quote:

Do you prefer to use the minimum cartridge that will get the job done,a middle of the road cartridge,or a cartridge with a lot more power than is required for the given usage?

Depends, how's that for an answer. Now this is just my personal experience and opinions.

I started hunting deer with a 243. I had a couple of bad experiences. They weren't necessarily the hunter's fault. Went to a 270 and my confidence soared, success happened.

Used that same 270 on elk with premium bullets, elk died but it wasn't the results I was personally looking for. Went to a 338 WM, it worked. Got tired of of the magnum mania, sold it, went to a 338-06. Shot my last three elk with that cartridge. Pretty impressed.

A couple of years ago I got tired of the internet experts talking about how a 22 centerfire is too small for deer. Proved a point to myself by shooting about a dozen deer over the last two years with a 22-250 and 53gr Barnes TSX bullets. It worked, very similar to a 270 on elk.

I know that a 243 will work just fine as a deer cartridge. But from past experience and my own personal mental hang up. No one in my family will hunt deer with one. The beginners have all used 270's with reduced loads.

I have witnessed/shot elk with 243-375. I have personally feel comfortable with a 338-06 and bigger for elk. I have witnessed/shot deer with 22-375. I am personally comfortable with a 270 and bigger for deer. I know there are smaller cartridges that will work. I've even proved it. But I always come back to the 270.

I am of the opinion that a bigger diameter bullet has more effect than the same diameter bullet moving faster. For example take my favorite 270. By going to a 338-06 I feel that you have gain more than by going to a 270 Weatherby magnum. The deer I have shot with the 338's, 35's, 375's have left no doubt that they were hit and not going far.

I have used all three types of cartridges, and I hate to say it. But I am probably in the middle of the road.

So I break cartridge down by bullet diameter and velocity. My personal opinion is bigger diameter kills better and higher velocity makes it easier to kill farther away.

It all boils down to what you feel comfortable with. And when all else fails. Read my statement below.

Better to have than not need, than to need and not have.
I do not perscribe to hunting with the bare minimum, I am not a 243 fan, but damn I'm a 25'06 beleiver. I have taken a bull elk with my 25'06, and no I was'nt planning on having a elk herd walk out in my deer spot, but hey it worked, but would I do it again, well frankly I dont know, I felt the inate urge to have a larger caliber, like my 284Win, or even better the 300Win Mag, I borrowed from the guy I sold it to 3 years before.
But in retrospect the load development I did for a buddy with his 300RUM, sure made me realise I cant shoot a caliber that big, and no I dont want one, but my 300WSM, is about the max. I can shoot effectively.
A lot of shooters are waaay over gunned, not by the rifles performance but by their abilities, to shoot the rifle well enough, horsepower should not replace marksmanship.
I'd sooner see a compitant and practised shooter out there with a 270Win, as opposed to a guy with a seroius recoil induced flinch and the latest wonder magnum.

quote:

My personal opinion is bigger diameter kills better and higher velocity makes it easier to kill farther away.

After several decades as a hunter, guide, and outfitter, I have come to the same conclusion as SDhunter on this.

These are always fun posts to argue in, but the bottom line is that the question of what is optimum and what is minimum won't even get answered in a thread. I'd bet that 90%+ of all elk shot each year are done with a .270, 7 Remmag or 30-06, does that make them the optimum? From a statistical point of view that puts those 3 calibers right at the top of the bell curve. So as yo move to either side of these three up or down you should be becoming more under or over gunned. Just something to think about.

The real can of worms starts when you try to define each cartridge and how it relates to the individual species. What is light, medium, and overkill for deer, elk, antelope, bear, big bear, cape buffalo, etc?

That's half the fun of these threads. Some newbie asks what to use on a Cape buffalo. I personally have no experience, so I try to leave it to the guys that have actual experience. From these boards I have gathered that you can kill them with 30-06's. The 9.3's or 375 is legal minimum. And the 416's is the diameter that start to shine. The 470's, 500's and bigt bores really whop them.

There is a range of cartridges that will work for anything. It all comes down to personal preference. But these questions give newcomers lots of info to digest. Hopefully I can get them steered to a middle of the road cartridge that just plain works. Too light and they could have a bad experience, too big and it can ruin their shooting.

I personally don't like the magnum mania, that's my opinion. I tend toward cartridges that work with undue fuss.

There are plenty of people on this board that love magnums. It doesn't make them wrong, they just have different opinions. They like the extra that those cartridges have to offer.

That is why I voiced my opinions above from my personal experiences. But everyone is going to have different experiences to back up their thoughts. If they don't, then they are armchair cowboys.

quote:

I'd bet that 90%+ of all elk shot each year are done with a .270, 7 Remmag or 30-06, does that make them the optimum?

Not where I hunt.The 7mmremmag and 30-06 are popular,but the 300 mags and the 338win mag are also very popular.The 270win is not a common choice for elk or moose where I hunt.

Just to throw something different into the mix. The outfitter I hunt with in western Colorado has told me, that he has seen more elk wounded and lost with a 7mm.Rem.Mag., than any other caliber. His reasoning was over confidence with a gun that the shooter hadn't really worked with. They came up with the 7mm.Rem.Mag. , and evidently thought that a near miss would suck enougth oxygen out of the air to suffocate the animal being shot at. JMO

That may be true, but it's not the fault of the 7mag. It's poor shot placement and the vast numbers of them being shot. The 7mag was the first of the magnum craze and pretty much held or maybe still holds the top spot.

It really depends on the situation for me.

When I'm hunting the home area, Blacktail, and no chance of shooting an Elk, I guess I'd be in the minimalist catagory. I really like the Quarterbore for the smaller game.
I've also used several different rifles in the mid range, and even the .338WM one year. Had no issues with any of the rifles.

When I hunt an area where I may be holding more than one tag I usually take my 7mm RM or .338 WM as they can and do cover both nicely.

As for the 7mm being the most common for wounding...... I don't buy it. I don't give much weight to that one guys opinion. He may well be a hater of the 7mm RM because he favors the 7x57 or the '06. I personally would have to say I've seen more poor results from the .270 and the big mags. I chalk that up to the number of hunters who get the .270W as their first big game rifle, (inexperience), and the big "mags" because they hurt the guy and he flinches. He doesn't get enough practice. If he would have gotten a more manageable rifle, and some practice it would be no problem. Nate

I guess I am a middle of the road person. I don't own a rifle chambered in anything larger than 30-06, unless you count my 264WM. But then again, I don't need anything bigger for anything I intend to hunt. I don't intend to hunt the coastal bears or cape buff. If I spend $10K, I will try for NZ tahr, or red stag or even a Russian Marco Polo sheep. I have seen all of my 6.5s kill just as effectively as any of my 30 cals, but then again, with those long bullets, the penetration is just as good, or better than the '06.

Like someone mentioned above, I also aim for shoulder bones to bring it down quickly. I also have shot enough game that I do not have the must kill mentality. If the elk is 300 yards away and not a really good shot, I will just pass on it, even if it is the only elk I saw. I like to pretend my 16 year old daughter is with me on every hunt, which means I just get closer so the need for the 300WM is now a 30-06. If I can't, no big deal, I'll try again some day. And to those that would ask, yes I have gone home empty handed from a $7000 elk hunt for just that reason.

If it is not dangerous, the 6.5 will do fine 99% of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by SouthpawDV:
Better to have than not need, than to need and not have.
But in retrospect the load development I did for a buddy with his 300RUM, sure made me realise I cant shoot a caliber that big, and no I dont want one, but my 300WSM, is about the max. I can shoot effectively.
A lot of shooters are waaay over gunned, not by the rifles performance but by their abilities, to shoot the rifle well enough, horsepower should not replace marksmanship.
I'd sooner see a compitant and practised shooter out there with a 270Win, as opposed to a guy with a seroius recoil induced flinch and the latest wonder magnum.

While I can readily agree that in other parts of the country (and world) much longer shots and Larger or dangerous game mandate more powerful cartridges, here in New England 100yds is an incredibly long shot at a deer, moose, or a black bear. Yet we have out of staters crawling all over the place with big magnums. Yes, there is such a thing as overkill. You just don't need a Barrett to kill a 150lb deer at 50yds. Or a 250lb bear. Or an 800lb moose. Yes, it's nicer to put a larger diameter hole in them, especially with a moose, but it can get shot out a .35Rem or a .358Win more effictively and by more different hunters than a .350Norma Mag.

I agree that it is very likely most of the people here on this forum shoot a lot and many can handle the heavier calibers. However, most hunters DO NOT shoot their rifles with any regularity, and many don't even bother to check their zeros before the season. I have heard bragging in the deer camp more than once about how many deer were killed from the one box of cartridges over a dozen years. I have seen people at our club's range shooting even -06's with flinches so bad that maybe the first round hits the target, none of the subsequent ones do.

A good hunter has to honest with him(her)self about what can be shot comfortably and accurately. Obviously, if you have trouble with a .223, you shouldn't be hunting big game, but that doesn't mean that if you can handle a .50BMG that's what you should be carrying to take a deer at handgun ranges. The only practical magnums for short ranges and quick shots in thick woods are loaded into revolvers and lever actions.

I am not a fan of heavy recoil, but I do own a few rifles with some authority and I do practice with them. Still, I don't mind at all passing up a marginal shot if I am carrying a lighter caliber rifle. I am out in the woods because I need to be, not because I have to kill something. When I do get something, it's great, when I don't, it's still better than anything else I could possibly be doing, especially if it involves good friends and my kids.

Maybe the real question for me is not about "minimum vs. optimum", but rather why am I in the woods in the first place? Why are you? Are you only there to kill something, or are there things of equal or greater importance to you than a full freezer? I know that there are for me. I would hope that there are for you, too.

I certainly have to agree with Versifier. Here in Arizona there is a real possibility that a 200 plus yard shot will present itself. As for myself I find that I am very comfortable at that range but probably wouldn't exceed it. In Arizona Elk tend to be on the large side and at 150 yds or so I find the killing power of a .340 Wby to be very effective. I'm not particularly recoil or muzzle blast shy but the muzzle break does make a differnce so that I have been able to regularly practice without developing a flinch.

That said, it's the placement that counts and we as hunters are fortunate to have the opportunity and the game deserves our best. I also would just as soon pass on any shot, and have, that I have any discomfort with whatsoever. I enjoy the hunt and all that it entails whether I bring home something for the freezer or not.

The small end of my collection is a .30-06. Loaded light for smaller game is the preference here. Again Arizona also has some predators so having the extra power available gives a comfort level to being in the woods.

Bottom line is that the shooter shouldn't be firing anything that he or she can't shoot accurately. From there ensuring the correct bullet for the job is important for a quick and humane kill.

Ken....

I think one thing somewhat neglected here is the reason the hunter is hunting. If you are trophy hunting in Africa, where the primary objective on a PG hunt is to drop the animal as quickly as possible, or DG hunting, where the objective is to kill the animal as quickly as possible, but in any case prevent it from being able to "retaliate," I would think the hunter would want to use the most powerful cartride he can handle well.

On the other hand, when I am hunting here in the US, I am primarily hunting meat. My point of aim is intended to result in a lethal shot with as little meat damage as possible. Therefore, on deer-sized animals I use a .270 or .30 cal and aim for a broadside shot just behind the front leg. On larger game I use a .30 cal (presently a .300 WSM) and use the same point of aim. Certainly a .375 will drop an elk at 200 yds with almost any point of aim, broadside, frontal or raking, much more surely than a .270 may, but you'll lose a hell of a lot of meat!

In my experience, I have found velocity to be a whole lot more destructive to meat than bigger diameter bullets.

I have punched 338, 35, and 375 bullets through deer at moderate velocities (less than 2600fps)
and had a great wound channel but not as much meat loss as say a 270-130gr BT at 3000fps.

The tougher/premium bullets also tend to cause less meat loss than the regular old cup and jackets at any velocity.

Hi Slingster!!

Once I tended to go for the heaviest cartridge I could find, considering the 9.3x62 about ideal, and shuddering whenever i used something smaller, like a 7x57mm or a .30-06. Now that I am older and smitten by arthritis I've learned that smaller and more accurate really does make up for bigger and boomier. The premium bullets do make a difference in the 6.5 and 7mms, not to mention the "weak" .30-06 and .270, so I think a person should shoot the rifle that they shoot the best, and practice, practice, practice!!!
LLS

THe older I get coupled with experience, I am moving toward the heavier calibers and bullets. I now grab the .300 win mag for about everything and the .375 H&H for bigger stuff.

I have a .280 that has taken elk and mule deer and kudu - the .300 whacks them harder, it seems.

Minimum caliber = sloppy killing. Carefully read Hemingway and Ruark who went to Africa with 30-06s, and O'Connor with his wet-dream obsession with the 30-06 and .270, and all the other smallbore weenies and you'll find a blood trail all across Africa. When I shoot something I want to see it drop, not run off into the bush seeking medical attention.

I think in choosing a caliber for the game you intend to pursue you only need to take two factors into consideration. The first consideration in my opinion is will the rifle and load cover the worst possible scenario that may be presented when the shot has to be taken. Second are you competent with the chosen caliber for the task at hand.

Having said the above I think we're probably all guilty of being a litte under gunned on occasion. I've hunted caribou in brown bear coutry with a 257 Robert because I wanted to try it out. It worked but not great and I would have been in deep do-do if I'd run into a bear having a bad day.

Another way to look at this topic might be within reasonable perameter perhaps we should shoot what we are most confident with. A guy on a bear hunt with a '06 he has faith in is a lot better off than a guy with a 375 Ultra he hates to shoot.

Maybe I have contradicted myself but this is what comes up for me on this topic.

Mark

I don't begin to have the experiance most of you have hunting big game with rifles. I do most of my hunting where I have to use a shotgun or a muzzleloader. When I started hunting deer in the late 70's most used slugs in the shotguns and roundballs in the ML. Today most use sabots.

Now a 12 guage rifled slug is a 1/4 inch bigger them the saboted Winchesters I use. In the ML the roundball is .060" larger then the Hornady XTP I use. Let me tell you there is a big difference in the effect on game. The smaller properly designed bullets work better. I'm not saying that bullets make a .22-250 the same as a .375 just that bullet diameter isn't everything.

One time I was in Quebec bear hunting. When I got to camp I went to check my rifle on the range. Another fellow there asked me to check his rifle, a Sako .300 Win. mag. I said "why don't you shoot it?" he said "It kicks too hard."
So I shoot it and it's 6" low and right. Ask if he want to change it and he says "no, thats good enough." Long story short He wounds a bear. We found it and he shot low(of course) Now I realize he's a moron but if he was shooting something a little smaller like a .270 or 7x57 he might of shot a little more.

I tend to lean towards more than adequate (which I would call medium), mainly for the penetration aspect. For the most part, I hunt with rounds that I believe will break both shoulders on a broadside shot or penetrate the vitals on a quartering shot. My personal opinion is that caliber/energy does not make up for a non-vital, bad, marginal, etc.. hit (I'm talking solid body hits, just not in the heart/lung area). This is based on my experience growing up in an area where deer drives was a preferred method and many shots were at moving, adrenalized animals. I have seen "marginal" hit deer go down very quickly when shot with pipsqueaks such as the .243 and trailed a long way when hit similarly from .30-06, 7mag, or larger (and vice-versa). I always thought it was funny that when somebody shot something with a .243 and it ran a ways, it was the calibers fault. When the same thing happened with a larger cal, it was either dismissed or "that was one tough critter". I will note that none of these were shots made by me, but since I was part of the party, I did my share to help recover any animal that was hit. As you have mentioned, when both lungs have a hole poked in them, I never noticed much of a difference no matter what did the poking.

-Lou

All of you make verry good points. I feel it all boils down to confidence, knowledge, and experience. For example I know that with a particular weapon i can shoot .xxx moa at 300 yards. My pbr is xxx yards. And I have memorized velocity, energy, windage and elevation, and dopes for all applicable ranges. Therefore I can say to myself, this weapon and I can hit that target and deliver enough force to put it down the first shot.

Defininitely lots of differing opinions on all fronts, mainly tempered with the unique experiences ofg the individual. I like to go optimum/large bullet/velocity under a few circumstances, such as calling elk near National park boundaries/posted land, thick bush conditions or extremely open country.I use the 300/338 mags under these conditions. At no time or range por condition have I ever required more than a 270/6.5-06 for any deer hunting situation I have encountered

I go mid Road and use a 270 on short hunts for mixed game of deer/elk in mid season or on cow hunts.These are usually to get out some safe queens into the field, get some new data on bullet performance, and justify owning/buying new rifles

I prefer overgunned. As much as I hold the 30-06 in high regard, if you're going to count the big bears, the 338WM gets the nod. There isn't anything you can't take in North America with the 338.

I like Mark Young's comment that we may be under gunned at some point. I like being somewhat overgunned like Cobra.

I chose the 375 Hawk (9.3x62 case necked up to .375) shooting a 250 grain bullet @ 2,700 fps like the 338 win mag. Easy to make cases and shoots like a house afire.

I consider this cartridge middle of the road with '06 brass and 59 grains of powder capable of taking anything anywhere.