You are so right the word "magnum" doesn't mean cow dung, and there is no break in the scale of rifle power where one is in "magnum" territory.

The whimps are those that buy a caliber because it is called magnum, or based on local urban or red neck lore that it knocks the snot out of what you are shooting.

The term "magnum" was applied to the first cartridges that had enough of a neck down to look like bottles....actually Champagne Magnums.

The need for more velocity in a bullet with high sectional density simply leads us to biggger cases with more powder in any given caliber. Sometimes we call these magnums, but they are really "Rangers" ...long rangers.

Also, when we need to anchor something or knock it down, bullet diameter and weight goes up, along with case capacity (sometimes with no increase). These are different than the Rangers.

We could just call them "Stoppers". So, we have Rangers and Stoppers. Once you get 40 foot pounds of free recoil in an 8 lb rifle either or both qualify as Magnums.

After having read many of the posts here at this forum, I have concluded that many folks use "magnum" calibers when something else a little smaller would have worked just fine. I keep reading all this "you need at least a .300 mag + for elk, .30-06 for deer, etc" and it makes me think that many folks don't have the skill to get within 50-70 yards of their quarry or they use a magnum to make up for poor shooting skills.
Does the old saying "it is not what you shoot, but where you hit them" hold true any more?? Are these folks hoping to make up for something they lack??

MG

Huh?

I used to belong to the "accuracy only" crowd and used my most accurate rifle, a 22-250, for hunting. I actually took several deer with it including the 34" buck that now hangs on my wall. However, it finally dawned on me how many animal needed more than one shot, and how many I was losing. Why take a chance with not enough rifle?
My point is that there are advantages to the magnums. They are flatter shooting (more forgiving on misjudged distances) and I do like the extra knock down power. Granted in 98 percent of the cases, my 308 will be more than adaquate. However, I prepare for hunting season expecting that 2% case. I am picky not only of my gun, but bullets, rests, etc. and more importantly, myself. In any Elk season, I expect to only get one or two shots all season. I had better be ready for it.
When possible, I try to close the distance, however, that is not always possible. Time and country are not always on my side. Anyone who has to close the distance to 100 yards will leave alot of animals on the mountain. I prepare for shots from 50 to 400+ yards. I practice at distances further than that.
I am a magnum hunter, and a wimp.

Maybe it is better to leave "animals on the mountain" than to cripple with shots taken at long distances (with small or large calibers alike). Lots of critters get lost because people push (more like go beyond) their limits and get greedy instead of letting one or two walk. If time and country are not on a guys side, maybe it is not a good idea, or ethical to try and push it. It just seems like more and more folks depend on guns because they're huge calibers...not because they can shoot them.
I just think that limiting yourself to a caliber that is adequate, but not over kill will make you become a better "hunter" and not just a "shooter".

MG

I think good shot placement is critical, but a big rifle is also a good idea. I find the quicker you can put an animal down the better. I have two examples.

The first is of a good friend of mine. He went elk hunting in his home state of Montana and took along his 270 like always. The rifle preformed well on the deer he took, but it took him seven shoots, well placed shoots, to anchor a cow elk - four in the vitals and three in the head. His conclusion was, "I'm getting a 338 RUM, I want more killing power!"

The second is of the manager at Bass Pros fine gun room in Texas. The Bongo displayed in there was taken by two quick shots from a double barrel 450. I asked to see were the animal was shot and he pointed out the wound. I asked him why he (actually his buddy) shot the animal towards the center of the animal, "there were just too many trees you couldn't see the whole animal at one time." Thus his double barrel 450 gave the extra knock down power needed to anchor the beast.

Now I'm not saying a 270 isn't good for elk, or we should all carry big bores into the deer woods, but if you can handle a rifle that seems like overkill for your query, as long as you shoot it like your 22, it may be better to take it along. Now I shoot a 30-06 for deer and smaller. If I'm fortunate enough to get elk tags in Montana, I might buy a 375, but if I can't shoot it like my 30-06, I won't bring it. It is better to have a 30-06 bullet in his vitals, than a 375 bullet in his arse.

Sevens

No Buddy =We just do not want to shoot and--Hollar SHIT

Just like the Point-If every one wanted the same, there would not be enough. You shot what you want and I as well//Even as I practice often and look for the right shot I guess I am--Another Magnum Wimp--That I love the speed of a Magnum

People using magnums and non magnums... who cares?, most people own and use both. Frankly I have been glad I have had a 300 win mag for a 150 yard shot, and have at times known I could have bagged a certain animal with less. Buy what please you and though this states the obvious... learn to shoot it well.

I like to get as close as possible to my game. I also like to shoot magnums. I do not think a magnum can make up for poor shooting skills.

Use enough gun!

Just a thought, What is overkill? Dead is dead isn't it?

I personally like my 300 mag. and am getting my son one for graduation from college. Two more wimps.



Barny

Deader is better? It rhymes at least. :-)

I personally am the most unsuccessful hunter in the game, so my opinions have no bearing on what they have done for me.

I have many rifles in magnum and non-magnum chamberings, in fact I lack non-hunting rifles. You know how I decide which one to hunt with "ummm, I feel like open sights today" or "hmmm, I want to carry this one" "the sling is already on that one" etc. For the deer and bear in my area any of them would work from the 264 win mag (smalled bore size hunting rifle I've got) to the 375H&H. Regardless of the rifle I took I would not take a shot I was not comfortable with and I don't think that guys with magnums by nature do that.

There are people that rely on the gun and not the practice, does that make magnums bad, hell no. There are people capable of shooting better than the cartridge can perform. I have a friend that if he hears you say "the rifle shoots better than I can" (I'm guilty of saying that) he says "why?" it means you need more practice. so I have a friend that had a 30-06, and after taking a 300+ yard shot (measured afterwards with a laser range finder, no bullshit guesstimating) and hitting low even with hold over, he went to an 06AI and then to a 308 norma. He is one of the best shots i have ever seen, so it wasn't a matter of trying to compensate for poor marksmanship. He wanted to make sure that if he took a long shot again he would not miss because it dropped too much. And no b.s. from people about "learning to hold over". This shot was taken in a fast situation when a couple other guys were taking their deer too (they came into the clearing they had been watching. Distance is hard enough to judge and then concentrating on compensating for drop etc. It is just a silly thing if you can get a cartridge with a flatter trajectory and make that work for you.

So shooting a magnum does not make a person a wimp. Downloading their rifles for hunting (popular with the 7mm rem. when it came out), whining about things, placing blame etc. these might make a guy a wimp, but not his gun choice.

Gotta go, it's 1:35 am and I get to get up in a few hours to go shooting!!!

Red

Gentlemen

I think magnum offer a bit more reach, bucks the wind a bit more, possible shot heavy bullets a bit faster and delivers a bit more energy. I don't think they are a good buy for compensating poor marksman skills or takeing shot at ranges you haven't trained for. I don't think hunting with any caliber makes up for poor marksman skills

It's really hard to accurately estimate the wind

Cheers
/ JOHAN

You definately don't need a Magnum to kill Elk but there are advantages that goes with them if you can shoot them accurately.I am not recoil sensative and can shoot my .300 just as well as my .270 and just as long.The .300 definately has advantages at longer ranges on Elk in my opinion.As far as hunting skills go,you can't always get within 70-80 yards of every Elk you see during open season so longer shots are sometimes in order,atleast where I hunt.I guess I don't see why shooting a gun you can shoot very well is whimpy whether it is a .270 or a .300 or larger.Some are recoil sensitive and others are not.As you said,shot placement is everything and a Magnum does not make up for bad shots.

Jayco.

Hi, Goat:

You're just trying to troll waving a banner that says you're such a good shot you could spit 'em down. No doubt you could hit a charging grizzly in the eye with a starter's pistol.

So why use anything above 70 grains of lead? Going small saves bullets, saves powder, saves cost and saves the environment.

On the other hand, such a pure shot as yourself would certainly be able to make a .338 Lapua hit the exact same hole as a .35 Rem, but hit it a lot harder, a lot further away and a lot faster. Since you won't, it makes one wonder whether the noise scares you.

kk

Ah, yet another great debate of small consequence! I for one know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, sooooo.......

"magnum" is but a name, nothing else. The .17HMR is a magnum, so too the .32 H&R, the .357, ad nauseum ad infinitum. The name means nothing. All cartridges are but convenient little packages to carry afield that facilitate our crimes against paper, cans, wildlife, and sometimes even ourselves. Hmmm, the .300 Weatherby with a max charge of RX25 still holds less powder than a .45-110, and the bullet is lighter by half. Which is the "Magnum"? Well, the .300 of course, but which is the most deadly? Please be very thoughtful before you answer.

If perhaps one thinks that others are overgunned, perhaps you have jumped to an unfounded conclusion, or worse, are a proponent of "ultra-light" shooting. Yeah, I can kill a deer with a .22 CB Short, but is it prudent? Yes, I can turn half a deer into bloodshot waste with a .300 Ultra and a Ballistic Tip at close range, but is that wise or necessary? I can also pot prairie dogs at considerable range with the same rig, ranges where a .22-250 will never reach.

For the record, my last deer kill would have had powder burns if he'd been a step closer.

To each his needs, to all the gift of wisdom. Whether named Sylvia or Claire, a wench is still a wench. By the way, one of those and a Magnum of French bubbly can make for a fine evening IMO.

Dan

Pres., TYGC
www.Philosophical.Debate

I think magnum is just another sales pitch. Like sabot stated, it's derived from a champagne bottle. There's nothing wrong with those magnum calibers though. One of my reasons for getting a 375 is it kicks more than my 30-06.

Sevens

Madgoat, All

There is a very similar thread over on 24 hour campfire which originated with an article by John Barsness in American Hunter magazine. I posted a response there to the thread and will repeat it here.

I haven't read Mule Deer's (John Barsness) piece in the American Hunter as, like some others here, I opted for the American Rifleman many years ago instead. Still, I think I know John well enough to surmise what he has written. I think we've even discussed the topic a time or two over the years.

For the two or three of you that have read my stuff in the past, it is no secret that my favorite chambering for the vast majority of my hunting is a 270 Winchester loaded with a good 130 grain bullet traveling at around 3100 fps. The scope on my pet rifle is an old Leupold 2x7 but I could have done just as well with a straight 6X. I suspect that I've used that combination for probably 85 percent of my hunting. For animals bigger than caribou size, I will often reach for a little more gun, say a 7mm mag or a 300, but not always. I'm pretty comfortable with my 270 on about anything that don't bite back. For that class of game, I carry the biggest thing I can shoot accurately.

I have no axe to grind with anyone that wants to use a big magnum on a little deer. Likewise, I have no fight with a guy that mounts a 6-25x50 scope that weighs three pounds on a scramjet whizzer. If he's comfortable with it and can shoot it accurately, plus is physically able to carry such an outfit in the field - more power to him. The only place where I draw the line is with those that pronounce such a rig is necessary!

A colleague once wrote about the virtues of a 375 H&H as a deer cartridge and wrote glowingly in the same yarn about shooting a caribou at 275 yards with a double 470 NE! No doubt a 375 H&H will kill a deer pretty dead - if hit in the right place. It will do the same with a elephant! I can't imagine a more impractical caribou rifle than a double 470 NE. It must have worked for my colleague though. Personally, I doubt that I could hit a barn at 275 yards with my 470. About 30 yards is all I ask of it.

The fact of the matter is that the man behind the buttplate is far more important than the size of the bullet or its launch speed. Granted, a modicum of common sense must be used in cartridge selection, but not much more than that.

When discussing the virtues of the magnum cartridges, I am reminded of something that Jack O'Connor wrote in a letter to Jim Wilkinson of Rifle Ranch fame. Jack wrote, "I have used a 7mm Remington Magnum on two safaris and a .270 on two safaris. If there is any practical difference in killing power or trajectory in the two I cannot see it." He then went on to say that, "Eleanor has shot everything in Africa from oribi to lion to elephant with a .30/06 and 7x57."

Makes sense to me.

Tom

Wow! Way to start a discussion. Nothing like a broad insult to get things going.

I Bowhunt as well as Rifle hunt and although I can and do get some close shots there are situations where a longer range rifle is my preference. That "Magnums are for Wimps" is rediculous. I don't see the point in insulting people to get things going.
My personal favorite for deer hunting is the .257 Roberts. Hardly even close to the performance level of my second favorite, a 7mm Rem Mag. My first choice for Elk is a .338 Win Mag. and always take a second rifle along just in case. It has been my '06 most often that is chosen as a back-up. The choice of the tool used has nothing to do with my Machismo.
There are several threads going now where bashing this and that are all that it getting done. What's the point?

Practice with whatever you choose to shoot will help ensure good shot placement in the field. Proper choice of bullet for the caliber/ cartridge will ensure proper bullet performance. Getting out in the field where the big animals are, and learning from your mistakes makes a better hunter.

Very Well Put OldFart, Plus again we are talking about speed that has to do with a Magnum {FASTER} Both Ways

I find that people who make statements such as madgoats generally only have one rifle and are trying to justify it as the one rifle that will do everything. They are ussually repeating something a Father or Uncle has stated that also only had one rifle.

Those with a little experience know that circumstance dictate the weapon.

It is obvious that folks who are on this forum do not represent the majority of the hunting public, or the average joe hunter for that matter. Most folks here I would say are "well above average" shooters and seem to be very experienced outdoorsmen/women. It just seems that there is all this emphasis in outdoor magazines (and a few threads here too) that the bigger the caliber, the better off a guy is. I see several problems with this, namely a hunter taking shots that aren't ethically sound (well, I got the .338, I'll just shoot that deer through this tree...), or farther than he should ("my old .300 can reach out there a good 500 yards"), and many times these arm busting calibers just kill trigger pull making the person a lousy shot. I see folks here in Wyoming using large calibers (.300+) for antelope and deer and all they are doing is ruining a bunch of meat and crippling a lot of critters from taking shots the gun can make, but they can't. I feel more emphasis needs to be on actually stalking and hunting, rather than just shooting and killing.
Now, I know that there are folks out there that take the time to get to know their rifle (not just wipe the dust off once a year to go and hunt) and can take a kick in the shoulder...more power to you. I guess my emphasis was on those who just buy "MAGNUM" calibers expecting to pull miracles in the field just because....

MG

Madgoat, we hear what you're saying but it's not the cartridge at fault, it's the hunter/shooter. Anyway, isn't every new cartridge these days a "Magnum"?

4bambam, Mickey1 was referring to madgoat's post not yours. Sorry about your dad and uncle and all, must be rough, that just happening so recently. There's no real problem around here about getting tough on somebody that deserves it, but if you'll read Mickey1's post again..." people who make statements such as madgoats generally only have one rifle ...", you'll see you owe him an apology.


Dan

Pres., TYGC
www.WorldWide.Arbitration

Madgoat, when I think of all the game animals over all the years, it is a true statement that over 95% of them could have been taken with a 30-30 or 7X57 and never have known any difference. My logon name indicates my preferences, you could put "RM" after the "8MM" and know my exact preference. Having said that, the 5% really did need the "RM" or the shot would not have been taken. I see comments about the importance of shot placement, and I concur. A bad shot with a "Magnum" doesn't become a "good" shot. This is true of the non-magnum variety shot also.

Central Idaho may not allow you to get that 50 yard shot, some places you may be lucky to get a cross canyon 300 yard shot. Having the "RM" in the name may mean taking the shot versus watching them fade into the horizon. Taking, and making, the shot. A good shot with a "30-30" would be a bad shot, end of story. A good shot with the "RM" is a good shot. Course, you know all that, right?

D-DAN--Than he should have hit the Reply to Madgoats part of the thread and not to my part of the thread as a Reply to me.!!

4bambam

I also am sorry about your Uncle but I was agreeing with you agreeing with Old Fart. If you re-read my post in that context you will see that. I hit reply and RayinAlaska posted before I did, thus the skip.

Again, sorry for your loss.

Mick--A OK

Madgoat,
You make a good point. There are far too many people who think that if they have a bigger cartridge, they can take those 500+ yard shots and kill something every time. These yahoos end up lobbing shots until they cripple something bad enough that they can get close to it and finish it off. Or worse, they cripple it but don't bother to follow their shot becaue they were too far away to tell that they hit it in the first place. Granted, not all of these guys are shooting "magnums," but I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of them are heavier loads just so they can shoot farther. The bottom line is that it's a damn shame that there are so many critters running around missing lower jaws or dangling broken limbs because some jackass thought his gun could make that 1/2 mile long shot. I have literally watched people shoot at elk over 900 yards away, lobbing rounds until the elk figured out that whatever was kicking up the dust around them probably wasn't good and took off. Makes us hunters look really good to the non-hunting public who can't decide whether or not they should allow us to keep hunting or side with the PETA people. Of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir here, the contributors to this forum for the most part seem to know what's going on. I guess I'm off on a bit of a tangent, but we've got to remember that as hunters, we're under a lot of scrutiny from the outside, and if we don't police our own ranks a bit better, our kids and grandkids aren't going to know the hunting lifestyle that we do. No matter what we're shooting, we'd better know what we're doing and get the point across that we're not just out there to kill everything that moves any way we can.

Yes i think you can be "over gunned" in certain circumstances and i think the primary indication of being "over gunned" is not being able to shoot it well due to the recoil.



As far as magnums go, as already said,it only a name. What is interesting is when you ask a shooter why he choose a particular caliber or rifle/scope combination. I would imagine you guys from the States could have some very enlightening stories on that one!



Getting back to magnums and being over gunned. I shoot roe deer (live weight around 70lbs give or take) with a .308win...some guys shoot Elk (10 to 15 times that weight?) with a .300 Win Mag...who is "over gunned"?



Regards,



Pete

I will just use my 308 Win and 30-30 for everything thank you. The rest of you, use what ever you want.

I have shot elk with the 25-35, 30-30, 30-06, and other low and medium calibers, They work if one takes broadside or near broadside shots only and limits his range and thats fine but in practice few follow the rules...

Personally I consider a proper elk gun to be a 338 Win loaded with 250 gr. Noslers or 300 gr. Woodlieghs and then I can take any shot thats presented to me...You cannot do this with lesser calibers and most of my shots today are in thick timber going away from me..

I also like to get them down quickly as a shot bull tends to go into some really nasty places to die, always down hill and in the Southern and central reaches of Idaho that is simply horrible by design of the terrian.....

As to what the locals use, thats not of much importance to me as a heck of a lot of them don't know squat about hunting elk or deer and use all sorts of poor rifles and wound a lot of animals...Being a local does not have anything at all to do with being a hunter in my opinnion...

Your right! I think over guned is when you think you have to have xxx caliber, not when take xxx caliber just because you like to. Like when I use my Marlin 336 30-30 to head shoot grouse or my 300 min mag 190 grain btsp for deer.

I use a 708, 3006, and a 300 win for deer. So where do I fit into this equation. The 708 is for close shots in the woods and carries a low power scope. The 3006 is for when I don't know where I will sit and carries a mid range variable, the 300 is my beanfield gun and carries a higher power scope. AT 6'3" and 225 I don't qualify as a wimp but like to use the mag sometimes. The 300 doesn't seem to do any more damage to the meat than the 708. Both my kids shot deer with the 708 this year and totally destroyed a shoulder on each deer, this with reduced loads (2300 fps with a 140 interlock). I shot a mulie through both shoulders with the 300 and there was not near the damage, (180 sierra prohunter). Seems to me, there was not as much talk of meat damage on deer until more hunters started using ballistic tip type bullets that tend to disintegrate when shot at high velocity and close range. I tend to use the correct tool (gun) for the job at hand. If that happens to be my 300 win, so be it.

Magnum calibers are great if a person can actually hit something with them. I thought of getting a magnum before I bought my first rifle. The more experienced people I talked to, the more I realized that I probably didn't need a mag. There is (or can be) a significant increase in recoil and noise, and being a smaller size (5'9" 145lb.) I didn't need that. Also, I heard too many stories about guys who owned mags and couldn't hit. I bought a 30-06 so I could practice with it and place the bullet within a fraction of an inch of the target which would be mule deer, moose, black bears, and elk The point of all this is to agree with the gentlemen who recommend enough gun for the game, but no more gun than the shooter can accurately shoot. If you can shoot a .300+ mag and are not recoil sensitive, my hat is off to you.
Regards,
Graham

Ray, if a 30-06 with a 180 Failsafe or Barnes X will penetrate as deeply as a 250 NP from a 338 WM (it does), am I undergunned?

Why are so many people afraid of magnums? I don't get it. Do you read too many magazines or listen to to many peole at the range? Recoil is all in your mind until you reach 40 caliber.

For years Gunwriters have written that only they are 'Men Enough' to tame the mighty .375 Holland, or 300 Weatherby or 7MM Remington. Like all the old rumours of the 348 breaking collarbones. What a crock.

Have any of you guys that fear recoil actually shot more than a half dozen of any Magnum? By the way, the lighter you are the easier it is to absorb recoil. Like the whippy Willow vs. the mighty Oak.

At my local gun range a blind test was given about 2 years ago. Shooters were blindfoilded and pointed down range. They were handed 5 rifles a 25-06, a 270, a 30-06, 300 Win Mag and a 338 Win Magnum and asked to identify them by recoil. After firing each rifle they were given a choice of 3 rifles to choose from.

Only a couple got either of the Magnums correct, most naming the 338 as a 300 Win Mag and the 300 as a 30-06, a couple calling them as 270s. The 25-06 was named as the 300 Win Magnum more often than a 25-06 or 270. Bye the way, I wasn't any better than anyone else either.

It's all in your heads boys.

Mickey, I'm with you.

This is another one of those "Great Motherhood Theory" discussions, where -- yet once again -- less is somehow equal to more, and where wishing just HAS to make things so!

I'm neither a Keith guy nor an O'Connor guy. I'm much more of a Bob Hagel guy. I read an article of Hagel's called "Magnums Work Better" in 'Field & Stream' magazine back in the mid-1970s, when I was a teenager just starting my hunting career, and at the time I was big on the .270 writers -- John Jobson and Jack O'Connor.

When I read that Hagel article, I dismissed it out of hand, but as the years have gone by, I've come to see that Bob was right on just about all counts, and his own experience much more closely meshes with my own than did the other writers of that day -- or even today.

One statement Hagel made that has stuck in my head and is true: "No cartridge kills any better than the cold, hard ballistic figures say it will." Amen and AMEN to that statement.

Sorry, the .300 Savage, .308 Win. , and .30-06 are not the equal of the .300 magnums. The .270 Win. isn't the equal of the 7mm magnums, and none of the standard cartridges wack the big stuff as hard as does the something like the .338 Win. Mag., et al. I wish I had a better feel-good assessment to offer, but I just don't, and won't.

This month some name gunwriter will have a feature published that talks about how "less is really more" or at least just as much (as if ballistic realities don't count!). Next month, or six months from now, the same writer will have another piece published, and this time the theme will be how "more really IS more", and now those ballistic realities that were ignored and swept unde the carpet the last time will be hauled out, dusted off, and brought to light.

Some of these guys build careers out of twisting evidence to prove just about any point they'd care to make.......

And your neighbor will be all big on the .308 Win. and tell you how stupendous a killer it is this year, but next year he'll decide it's obsolete and/or not so great after all and have a 8mm Remington or something he found at a gunshow in its stead. In 2004, less is more, in 2005 more is more....

AD

Well, I have to agree with that, I am a "Hagel guy" and have considered him to be the best, most realistic gun-hunting writer of them all for years. This whole question has very little to do with reality, anyway, as anyone who is strong and fit enough to hunt big game can easily learn to properly handle a .300, .338 or .375.



I see no point in using a small bore rifle in country where a lethal encounter with an agitated Grizzly is a definite possibility. I also see little point in not using the most effective cartridge-bullet for a given task.I prefer a .338 over a .30-06 for big animals; even if the actual advantage is slight, I want it.