What do you think of this idea:

"With modern bullet technology, high powered magnums are not necessary for lower 48 big game. Bullets such as the Nosler accubond and Barnes TSX will kill deer to elk size game, so long and the shot is placed well, and the minimum KE or velocity requirement is met. According to the manufactures, he NAB requires 2000 FPS, the TSX requires 1000 FP energy on target. This means that standard cartridges suchas the .308, .30/06, and .270 are effective on game as large as elk to 500 yds. Smaller cartridges such as the .25/06, .243, 7mm-08 are effective to 300-400 yds. Considering most shooter's abilities in hunting situations, shots over 300 yds are risky and extreme care, and discression, must be taken for shots to 500 yds. Must game is killed under 250 yds. So for the averge hunter, standard cartridges are better because the cost less to shoot, have less recoil, and have adequate killing power within normal hunting ranges."

Your opinion?

My thoughts are.......then why drive a corvette or viper when a ford escort will get you to the store! Because were men! And we like power, it's a basic man need!
wapiti7
Oh yea, because out west, we like to shoot far!

wapiti7

This old New Yorker loves to wave the red flag in the bull's face - so here goes.

What ever happened to the 264 Win. Mag? And the 300 Win. Mag? And, of course, that runaway favorite, the 7mm Rem. Mag? And I must have missed the burial ceremonies for the 30-06 and the 270. (Oh, yeah, I forgot that the '06 and the 270 are for shots under 100 yards)

Just kidding you - but I do admit to a real prejudice against "new superduper" cartridges being brought out almost year after year. (The Ruger 375 is the latest on my list)

quote:

What ever happened to the 264 Win. Mag? And the 300 Win. Mag?

They are alive and well, and I own both -- my only two remaining rifles after a sell-off to finance my trip to Africa.

My Mod. 70 .264 is a 1965 vintage. After carrying it for many years in a saddle scabbard, it got kinda ratty looking, so I had Robar Inc. in Phoenix refurbish it. They coated the metal parts with satin-silver NP3 and put the action into McMillan synthetic.

Just before heading to Africa, the 3x9 Leupold -- also 1965 vintage -- went belly up. So I bought a satin-silver 4-12x 50mm to replace it.

The .300 is a custom Robar creation built on a M700 action. It has blued NP3 metal parts, McMillan stock and a 4-12X50 Leupold on it, as well.

Here's a result from a Colo. mule deer hunt using the .264 last week. Bullet was a Winchester factory 140 gr. PP load. -TONY

My opinion....drivel.

quote:

Originally posted by skb2706:
My opinion....drivel.

Do you want to back that up with reasons, experiances, ect?

How about the most power that you can use effectively? If all you can handle is a .270 or .30-06 then that is what you use. If you can handle something larger like a .338 Win Mag or .375 H&H then use it if you want. Right now the rifles I shoot the best are my .30-06 and .270; that is what I hunt deer, elk, and bear with. I’m working my way up to larger calibers; I have a .338-06 and .35 Whelen just begging to kill an elk.

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:
How about the most power that you can use effectively? If all you can handle is a .270 or .30-06 then that is what you use. If you can handle something larger like a .338 Win Mag or .375 H&H then use it if you want. Right now the rifles I shoot the best are my .30-06 and .270; that is what I hunt deer, elk, and bear with. I’m working my way up to larger calibers; I have a .338-06 and .35 Whelen just begging to kill an elk.

Sure but that wasn't really the point. I'm wondering if anyone disagrees with the logic behind the statement, i.e. will those bullets really kill effectivly at those velocities.

Proper bullet placement is more important than bullet design or size.

Millions of buffalo at all sorts of ranges were killed daily with lead bullets out of black powder rifles.

Elk/Moose/Bears, all kinds of stuff has been killed with 22's/25-20's/30'30's.

Some folks just like trying different things and expect different things when it comes down to killing an animal.

That is the beauty of being a human and living in America, DIVERSITY.

Wouldn't life be dull as hell if everyone used the same weight bullet out of the same caliber rifle and shot everything at the same distances EVERY TIME.

Outdoor Writer:

Nice buck and congrats on what must have been a nice shot - Now let me ask you something. You said you shot him with a 264 Win.Mag.,140 gr. bullet.

What was the real difference between that load and a 270, 130 gr. in terms of dropping the buck? I'm not picking a fight. I'm not quarrelling with your liking of a particular rifle chambered for a particular cartridge -we all feel that way about certain guns on the rack or in a cabinet. I'm asking if you, (as an honest man) can say that you got that mulie because you used a 264 Win.Mag.because it was superior to the 270 -or whether it was because you used a rifle you were totally familiar with. (No prize for honest answer)

Gerrys,

You can't pick a fight with me because you're preaching to the choir; I agree with you totally!

Here's why.

My oldest son shoots a Ruger M77 .270 that I gave him many years ago. So quite a while back, I ran the ballistics for FACTORY ammo and came up with the same conclusion as you did. But for a bit of extra energy downrange because of the slightly heavier bullet, the .264 has little to offer over the 130-gr. .270. The energy and velocity are so close throughout the trajectory that no animal would ever know the difference.

That said, until 10 years ago, I was handloading for the .264, thus getting better performance while still using a 140-gr. bullet. Obviously, one can make the same case for the .270.

This particular nuance is why I never get into the discussions about whether a .270 is adequate for this or that critter. And it's mainly because I KNOW how both calibers can perform in the hands of a competent shooter.

I have literally lost count of the elk, deer, caribou, antelope, bear and even a 60" BC moose that I've killed with the .264. It also accounted for 10 of the 12 critters I shot in Africa and four in New Zealand. In 40+ years, I've lost only one critter wounded with that rifle (Coues deer) and one with a bow (MI whitetail). And I haven't missed many with the .264 either.

I have no doubt I would have had the same success on all of the above using a .270 with 130-gr. bullet. In fact, I once owned a Browning Safari Grade .270 built on a M98 action, and it killed a couple elk and deer just as dead as the .264 would have.

But...the key you hit on is simple: when I pick up that M70 and it goes boom, with few exceptions something goes bang-flop on the first shot. IOW, I have a LOT of confidence that the bullet will go where I want it to when that rifle comes up to my shoulder. -TONY

P.S. -- the shot on the buck devastated the heart and one lung. He ran 20 yards and folded up dead. Exit hole was about 3" across even though it was in the rib area.

I think Tony is dead on. I have used a .280 for many years and killed 5 elk, 4 pronghorns and about a dozen whitetails. I took it to South Africa and killed several plains game animals including kudu. I never thought twice about the caliber or the 150gr Nosler Partition I used. It just worked.

I then started thinking about it and bought a .300 win mag. Killed 3 mule deer, 2 pronghorns and several African plains game with it in Zim.

I chose the .300 because I wanted a little "umpf" when I shot something.

Both work great as long as I put the bullet in the "zone". If I miss, it is a long march to collect the wounded beast.

I spent about a year looking at big bores, bought about a dozen, shot them all and came back to the .375 H&H as I can hit what I aim at with it.

Nowadays, I think the quality of the bullet has become a bigger factor than previously thought. I like the Triple Shocks, Partitions and TBBC's.

I am not sure what the answer is other than - shoot what you shoot the straightest and have the most confidence in and use a good bullet.

First off, I think I'm like Tony, and you're preaching to the choir with me also--I think--

I do think the modern bullet designs give a bit extra than some previous designs, I just don't know if it's an order of magnitude-- there are plenty of folks here on AR, that can tell you how effective the 'good ol cup 'n core bullets' are. I have had a good deal of success with them as well.

I shoot some of the modern design cartridges, usually seeking higher speed with a comparable weight bullet, or sometimes I have builtr a rig around a certain cartridge with a goal of launching a particular cal/weight bullet at a certain speed.....so I think I'm on the same page with your 'idea' but I like some of the new cartridges too....


BTW I have over a dozen 270's

You all need to leave those silly little toy guns at home, you oughta know a wimpy ole standard cartridge doesn't kill game like a magnum.



On a serious note, I probably have about as many magnums as standards and don't feel under-gunned with any of them when I have the right bullets for the task.

My reasoning for magnums you might ask? I prefer the slightly flatter trajectory achieved with the faster velocity and great BCs of todays bullets. From my own experiences I've found alittle more velocity results in alittle more internal damage and the faster round is packing alittle more velocity at the longer ranges.(IE a 7-08 is not going to have the same result as a 7RUM at 500yards when pushing a 160 TSX or NAB) I hunt with standards, I just realize the limitations.

Either cart classes are fine on game and both will kill, but failing to recognize the advantages of the faster round is sticking your head in the sand.

Good Luck

Reloader

Hey Tony, Congratulations on a fine Deer. Did you run low on "Grecian Formula"?

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
..."With modern bullet technology, high powered magnums are not necessary for lower 48 big game. ..

Hey WS, I can see where that is a True Statement. Lots of folks get by with Non-Magnum Cartridges and have no regrets or problems.

I use both Non-Magnum and Magnum Cartridges. And I don't intend to be without either style. I use them for different situations and am happy with the results.
----

As far as Killing goes, if the shooter can handle the rifle and cartridge properly:
1. Bigger Kills better than smaller.
2. Faster Kills better than slower.
3. Bigger and Faster Kills the best of all.

When Hunting where the understory is dense, Exits are a significant advantage.

There are situations where a Premium Bullet is also a significant advantage. For folks that do not understand Standard Grade Bullets, it is best for them to just use the Premiums all the time. But when used as they are Designed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Standard Grade Bullet.

On the negative side, Faster tends to result in far more Blood Shot meat than Slower.

And Don has waaayyyyy too many 270s, but probably thinks he needs "Just One More".

Reloader,

I have one of them magnums, but in reality, as I mentioned, the only advantage it has over a .270 is the ability to burn more powder. Otherwise, the energy and velocity are near identical.

So I guess the point is having "magnum" as part of its name, MIGHT not make for a superior cartridge. Of course, that won't be the case with ALL magnums.

>>(IE a 7-08 is not going to have the same result as a 7RUM at 500yards when pushing a 160 TSX or NAB)<<

If the animal dies, what more result would one need?? -TONY

Fish,

You're getting way too much dust on those 270s, you oughta send a couple over here for me to babysit for a while. My one 270 is getting awful lonely, always has to prove to the others in the safe that he can do it too

Ya'll have a good one,

Reloader

A couple of years ago, a guy I sight-in rifles for invited me to come take a couple of does off their lease.

When I got there, my little 20" 7mm Bullberry Contender carbine and its less-than-impressive cartridge drew a few chuckles, and if I remember correctly, the word "toy" was used at one point.

But there was no laughing later that day when I had dropped deer on the spot from 135 and 190 yards. No one else connected, and the guy shooting a Rem 700 in .300 Ultra mag missed at least 2 shots -- both less than 100 yards away.

The 7mm Bullberry -- which drives a 130 grain Sierra SSP to 2505 fps or a 140 grain Nosler SB to 2480 fps from its 1.75" case -- is not unlike a number of cartridges I hunt with, and I have never found them lacking. For years, I hunted with a 14" 6.5 JDJ, which drives a 120 grain Ballistic Tip to 2400 fps. My take on the caliber: if you can't kill any whitetail, mulie or pronghorn that ever walked the face of the earth out to 250 yards (300 on a good day), then you sure as heck won't kill it with anything else, either.

Match the bullet to the range of velocity you are shooting and to the application you are using it for, and you will do just fine -- within reason, of course. Getting overly-analytical is not necessary. Apply common sense and enjoy your hunting excursions...

Ok Wayfaring Stranger here is the real question.

Why do we need to push 165 grain premium bullets out of a .300 Win to hunt elk when a regular 200 or 220 grain SP will kill the elk just as dead out of the same rifle? Or why do we need a 60 grain Partition in .224 calibers when a .243 with a regular 80 grain PSP will kill a deer just as dead?

We have become too obsessed with the FPS that our Magnum rifles produce, because we think we can get a laser beam rifle by using light bullets. This obsession with speed has led to many bullet failures thus creating a demand for a premium bullet. Premium bullets don't really make a standard cartridge any better just more expensive.

Why do we need bullets in 150 grain for .300 mags, 180 grain for .338 mags, and 210 grain for .375 mags? Doesn't this really defeat the purpose of a magnum rifle? I love the idea that a .338 Win Mag with a 250 grain bullet will roughly have the same trajectory as a 180 grain out of a .30-06.

The thing is this isn't a vanilla world people like different flavors. If we all liked the same thing we would use a plain old .30-06 with a Hornady, Winchester, Remington, or Sierra 180 grain bullets for deer and elk. There isn't an animal out there that needs a premium bullet to be killed as long as the hunter chooses the proper bullet and puts it in the proper place.

quote:

If the animal dies, what more result would one need??

Well Tony, I don't like to gamble with animals personally.

For instance, lets say you have the proper windage and elevation dialed in on either rifle at 500 yards(which, by the way wouldn't be much on the RUM (Literally twice as much on the 7-08) ) and you place that 160 TSX right through the upper lungs between two ribs on a trophy.

Theres quite a bit of information on the Barnes and other tough bullets failing to open at lower velocities, so which would you rather have in the above situation? 1500fps or 2120fps? I think I'll personally take the insurance of the later any day of the week. Once you've seen the ill effects of a tough bullet penciling on game, you'll know what I mean.

Please don't put words in my mouth and say I said the 7-08 wouldn't work, but why gamble? I'd take the 7-08/160 TSX combo any day, but I'd be limiting my ranges far more than a 7RUM pushing the same bullet.

In my experiences in the field, I've seen the advantages of faster carts and noone is going to tell me those advantages don't exist. If they didn't we'd all still be using a 30-30.

What gets me, is most of the debates on Magnums vs Standards are usually started by hunters that don't shoot game at longer ranges. I'll agree with anyone that if you don't shoot longer ranges, Magnums are of no use for you unless you like more meat damage, although more damage to the vitals does seem to put game down much faster.


Ya'll have a good one,

Reloader

quote:

Theres quite a bit of information on the Barnes and other tough bullets failing to open at lower velocities, so which would you rather have in the above situation?

I'd guess I wouldn't be using the Barnes bullets if they have that problem. Then again, even if it didn't expand fully, a lung-punched buck is a dead one.

quote:

In my experiences in the field, I've seen the advantages of faster carts and noone is going to tell me those advantages don't exist. If they didn't we'd all still be using a 30-30.

Agree there is an advantage -- to a point. And that is mainly a flatter trajectory over said 30-30. But then that's also true of a .270, 30-06, etc.

As for the longer ranges, I guess you can put me in the class that normally tries to get closer and avoid the iffy 500 yard pokes. For the most part, I rarely find that impossible. Maybe that's why I don't lose wounded animals, regardless of the cartridge I'm using. But to each his own.

Have a great holiday! -TONY

Wasn't the 30-06, 270, 308 etc. ok for all game in North America before these "wonder bullets"?

As for the longer ranges, I guess you can put me in the class that normally tries to get closer and avoid the iffy 500 yard pokes. For the most part, I rarely find that impossible. Maybe that's why I don't lose wounded animals, regardless of the cartridge I'm using. But to each his own.

+1

quote:

Don has waaayyyyy too many 270s, but probably thinks he needs "Just One More".

Right on both counts HC. It just kind of happened......Reloader, I do have rigs that don't take a game animal in a given year, but they all see a little range time at least..I probably need to trade one or two of them for a different cartridge, but it just seems easier to buy another one......I don't have a 7-08

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:

quote:

Originally posted by skb2706:
My opinion....drivel.

Do you want to back that up with reasons, experiances, ect?

Key reasons
The statements generalizes all big game hunting into a set of parameters I don't agree with. There are assumptions for required energy, range of shots, distances game are often killed at and most of all what I consider "better"...like i said drivel.

quote:

As for the longer ranges, I guess you can put me in the class that normally tries to get closer and avoid the iffy 500 yard pokes. For the most part, I rarely find that impossible. Maybe that's why I don't lose wounded animals, regardless of the cartridge I'm using. But to each his own.

I agree as well Tony, If a hunter doesn't have the skill to take 500 yard shots, he shouldn't. It's pretty simple.

Every hunter should know his limitations. "Spray and pray" hunters make long range capable hunters look bad.

I prefer to keep my shots to 400-450 max on nearly all of my hunts simply due to the fact I find it hard to judge the quality of animals at long distances unless you're lugging a huge spotter.

I also find it funny that many cast judgement on those that shoot at slightly longer ranges. I know guys that can shoot better at 5-600 yards than 95% of hunters can at 100.

It's quite amuzing to see alot of the folks at our local range that shoot pie plate sized groups at 100 yards and say "that'll kill a deer." Hey, I'm sure it will, but the amuzing part is hearing them tell stories of those 200-300 yard kills....

quote:

Then again, even if it didn't expand fully, a lung-punched buck is a dead one.

I agree, but have you witnessed how long even a deer can live when a bullet pencils the lungs? How many lung shot animals have you tracked that were hit through the lungs with bullets that didn't expand fully? I have tracked a few and it's not pretty. For one, you'd be surprised at how far even a small whitetail can run with an icepicked hole through the upper lungs, and you'd also be surprised at how little animals bleed when bullets fail to expand. Speaking of whitetails, you should have been around camp the few seasons that 3 of the guys decided to hunt with Failsafes because they were so accurate in their rifles. Luckily we had a good trained tracking dog then. Looooonnnnnggggg trails with little if any blood, only to say "Damn, I can't believe he went that far with that shot placement..." Here in the thick brush of North La, long tracking jobs aren't exactly fun. It's not like field hunting where you see them go down in the distance.

Everyone's experience differs and we all know that's what we rely on the most. I simply place my beliefs in what I've seen with my own eyes in the approx 200 big game animals I've personally taken and the 100s I've witnessed.

You all have a great T-day and Good Luck out hunting.

I'm going to take a few days off myself, our local whitetails are starting to rut a bit, my favorite part of the year , then it's off to Iowa next weekend for a shotgun hunt.

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
What do you think of this idea:

"With modern bullet technology, high powered magnums are not necessary for lower 48 big game.

What do I think of this idea? I think it is just another opinion. There are way too many variables in hunting to state, emphatically that the above is absolute or not. But let's get real here. Prior to modern bullet technology, all game in NA were killed with firearms, muskets, etc. Right?

quote:

This means that standard cartridges suchas the .308, .30/06, and .270 are effective on game as large as elk to 500 yds. Smaller cartridges such as the .25/06, .243, 7mm-08 are effective to 300-400 yds.

Define "effective." I believe that a 243 will definitely kill a big bull elk at 400 yards with a well placed shot. The problem with these discussions isn't whether or not the animal will be KILLED, it is the manner in which it dies. I always prefer bang flops. I'm not convinced that lesser calibers will provide that to the same degree that a bigger gun will do. In terms of probability, given a 400 yard shot at a trophy bull, I'd rather have my 300 RUM with a 200 AB over a 243 with a 90+ grain partition. Why? Both will kill it, but the fact is, I think my 200 grain bullet is a better choice for the results that I desire.

quote:

Considering most shooter's abilities in hunting situations, shots over 300 yds are risky and extreme care, and discression, must be taken for shots to 500 yds.

I agree.

quote:

Most game is killed under 250 yds. So for the averge hunter, standard cartridges are better because they cost less to shoot, have less recoil, and have adequate killing power within normal hunting ranges."

Your opinion?

Ok, here we go again with the whole cost crap---someone out there opines, once again, that something is better because it is easier on the wallet. I think it is every individual's business what he or she wants to spend on their hobby)

"Normal" hunting ranges? Ask an archer what a "normal" hunting range is. The answer will be ~ from 10 to 100 yards. Ask your annual rifle hunter that shoots 3 bullets before each season....probably ~ up to a couple hundred yards, maybe 250. "Normal" to a long range marksman may be up to 1000 yards. It's all relative, ethics aside.

I have and love my standard calibers and a couple of magnums. My opinion is that I'll shoot the biggest rifle I can simply because I like the power. I'm very comfortable with my 300 RUM. But that is for when I travel west to hunt. Around here in the midwest, for all deer, I grab the 270 or .06. Most of my shots are about 200 or under. That's just the way I do it.

One of the riflesmith's I use once said to me (when he was challenged at a gun show about the 'need' for a custom rifle over a factory one)---"what can your custom rifle do that my Ruger can't inside of 300 yards?" Answer: "nothing, but a 2" pecker will work too, but who wants that?"

quote:

One of the riflesmith's I use once said to me (when he was challenged at a gun show about the 'need' for a custom rifle over a factory one)---"what can your custom rifle do that my Ruger can't inside of 300 yards?" Answer: "nothing, but a 2" pecker will work too, but who wants that?"

That's funny Doc, thanks for the laugh.

Have a good one,

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:


I agree as well Tony, If a hunter doesn't have the skill to take 500 yard shots, he shouldn't. It's pretty simple.

Every hunter should know his limitations. "Spray and pray" hunters make long range capable hunters look bad.

Reloader

I have no problem when it comes to MY limitations at 500 yards, given the fact I shot metalic silhouette matches for several years. Thus, I had lots of practice shooting sheep targets OFFHAND at 500 meters.

But..that's a controlled situation where downrange windsocks helped shooters dope out the wind direction and speed. Plus, the target NEVER moved unless it got dinged by a bullet. And of course, I knew exactly what settings to use on my scope for each distance because of previously working out all those details.

Obviously, shooting on a range from a bench or other stable rest at that distance under ideal conditions would be fairly easy for me. When it comes to shooting game at those distances, however, too many variables come into play, and it doesn't take much for an otherwise good hit to become a wounded, gut-shot critter. So that is why I used the "iffy 500 pokes" -- not because of MY limitations.

In reality, after only 45 years of hunting, I'm still wet behind the ears, so to speak. Maybe one of these days I'll even find a hero to emulate.

Happy Thanksgiving! -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:

quote:

One of the riflesmith's I use once said to me (when he was challenged at a gun show about the 'need' for a custom rifle over a factory one)---"what can your custom rifle do that my Ruger can't inside of 300 yards?" Answer: "nothing, but a 2" pecker will work too, but who wants that?"

That's funny Doc, thanks for the laugh.

Have a good one,

Reloader

I'm here to please.

I'm curious Tony. Why the factory loads on that nice deer in your pic? This is after all, ACCURATE RELOADING.

quote:

Originally posted by onefunzr2:
I'm curious Tony. Why the factory loads on that nice deer in your pic? This is after all, ACCURATE RELOADING.

Dave,

I started handloading in 1967 and quit about 10 years ago, mostly because it was no longer feasible since I don't shoot much anymore. And...the factory loads have performed quite well in that M70 since then.

Those factory loads have accounted for several deer, a black bear, 10 of 12 African critters (used my .300 WMag on the other 2), four animals in New Zeland (5 counting this wallaby!)and NO wounded or missed game.

Is there a reason I should be concerned?? Maybe that deer isn't dead enough? -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:

Well Tony, I don't like to gamble with animals personally.

Reloader

I had meant to address this earlier. Did you not write this?

I don't care what anyone says, I'll take shots through holes in brush, at moving animals, at animals with other animals in the herd around them as long as none are directly behind.

-TONY

with all the arguments FOR/AGAINST is it ok to just like some of the magnum calibers, i.e. the enjoyment of just being able to control the beasts and make a decent mark at the target and the game animal.

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:
Ok Wayfaring Stranger here is the real question.


We have become too obsessed with the FPS that our Magnum rifles produce, because we think we can get a laser beam rifle by using light bullets. This obsession with speed has led to many bullet failures thus creating a demand for a premium bullet. Premium bullets don't really make a standard cartridge any better just more expensive.

That's the crux of the matter to me. Can premium bullets actually hinder a standard cartridge. I.E. will a NAB or TSX at it minimum velocity expand properly? Will it really do its job at its minimum, or would a good 'ol softpoint or NBT be more effective at lower velocities?

It almost seems to me that magnums necessitate premuim bullets. And I wonder if premium bullets really make up for "thump".