I was just wondering, how long have people been growing beans in big fields, I think it has been for a long time. What I can�t understand is how were deer hunted/shot in the bean fields before the �Bean-field rifle� and their super hyped-up cartridges came along? Clearly the Magnums of the day (300 Win./Weath.) were not sufficient � what on earth did they do?
Surely hunters didn�t actually stalk or outwit (hunt?) their prey did they? Or accept that some deer � at 600 yards - were just too damn far away, and they should wait a while for another one?
And how big are these deer that they need a .338 calibre bullet weighing 250gr and launched at near 3200fps in order to kill them, perhaps these deer are actually Moose?
Well they just used regular cal.s killed deer with them until they thought they needed some thing bigger and better. Another good reason to buy a another gun.
Posts: 19396 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001
Here in Dakota country we used calibers like the 303 British, the 30/30 or the 7x57 and for the long range stuff a 30/06 or 270. Can't say the yardage for sure, but many shoot as long as they can see them, and in most places that can be a mile or more.
When you grow up with only one centerfire rifle you just learn to use it. I never really lived in an area where I could do this with a larger caliber, but I had a 22 that was part of my body, how much I carried it.
I shot most animals at less than 100 feet or so, but was familiar enough with it to shoot rabbits across a 200 yard field when I saw them. This may start up the poaching thread up again, but I once shot a duck that was over 800 yards away. It was in a pond and I was able to figure out the hold-over with 2 shots by seeing where the splashes were and estimating from there. So I think that longer range shots were taken when the person familiar with the gun would be reasonably assured that they could get a reliable hit.
Posts: 7763 | Location: Between 2 rivers, Middle USA | Registered: 19 August 2000
When you grow up with only one centerfire rifle you just learn to use it. I never really lived in an area where I could do this with a larger caliber, but I had a 22 that was part of my body, how much I carried it.
There is alot to what you've said. Way back when, folks were out in the fields with their guns, and new how to use them, and used them well.
Now, folks try to use technology to make up for lack of hunting skills, or lack of time in the field to know what their guns can do.
Posts: 7213 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 27 February 2001
before the advent of the alledgedly do-all, be-all screamers, folks used to (gasp, sudder) walk to the side of the bean field that the deer were using and hunt there. A archaic approach that has fallen out of favor.
Posts: 2037 | Location: frametown west virginia usa | Registered: 14 October 2001
I guess before bean fields, we didn't eat as many beans, so we didn't get as fat or make as much noise or stink from breaking wind, so we were able to sneak up to within a couple of hundred yards of a deer. Now with all the beans we grow and eat, we're fat so we can't move, stink so they smell us if we are less than a mile away, and make too much noise to sneak. Because of all the darned bean fields we have lots of beans, with the aforementioned problems, so we need "beanfield rifles" to compensate for it. I say "ban beans" "Ban Beans!" "BAN BEANS!!!!!!" huff, puff, huff, huff . . . . . . Sorry, I got carried away there for a minute with all of the excitement.
Posts: 3818 | Location: Eastern Slope, Colorado, USA | Registered: 01 March 2001
As I remember from growing up, most of the adults used whatever caliber they shot in the last war. Nobody had the money for custom built rifles. They used what they had or could get second hand from surplus. I remember lots of .30-40 Krags. I guess that is why so many people got into .30-06. They got used to it in the Army. If anyone ever bought a deer rifle, it was a .30WCF.
In the fifties and sixties, Outdoor Life was filled with the same kind of articles that we read today. The difference was that nobody in Waco, Texas would have been caught dead going to the hardware store (there weren't any specialty gun stores and gunsmiths did repairs) and buying a brand new Schultz & Larsen 7 x 61 Sharp & Hart. They would have been the laughingstock. Today it is a "fashion statement".
Well keep in mind that at 600 yds. a 338 Ultra whatchamacallit is about as effective as a 38/40 Win...Another darn good reason not to shoot deer at 600 yds.
Before beanfields it worked like this. Loooooong before, the weapon of choice had a trajectory that was about two feet over line of sight, had 70 lb-ft/s momentum, 538 ft-lb energy and a maximum practical range of about 25 yards. People did not eat much meat then. Some bright spark then figured if he used a half pound rock instead of a five pound rock, and used some mechanical contraption to launch it a lot faster, the result on the animal was the same, but he could increase the range. People started eating more meat and the cycle of improving the range, with the reward of more meat every time it was achieved, was in place. Now, thousands of years later, it is part of our genes.
Ray I don;t know what figures you are use for the 338 but with a 250 boat tail even at only 2500 fps it still has 1700 plus fps and 1600 plus foot pounds, more then plenty to kill any deer it hit. The 38 40 is around a 180gr at 1800 mv, fps out of a rifle 1300 foot pounds. A good 338 beats the 38 40 buy a ways even at 600 yds. I don't think any out there way say a 38 40 at the muzzle won't kill deer. The 338 even beats the 30 30 muzzle energy at 600 yds. The hot 338s are even a lot better.
Posts: 19396 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001
Bush baby, that was before someone told our deer and elk that they were too tough to be killed with a puny little 30-06 or 270. Now any bullet under a 338 Ultra Mag will simply bounce off of even the smallest elk and a 270 is just used for rabbits. But seriously I couldn't agree with Paul H. more. Too many people are trying to use technology to replace skill and hard work.
------------------ When in doubt, empty the magazine.
P dog, I was just bringing to light that at 600 yds. most rifles are on the verge of being a little light for game, due to a lack of velocity and bullet construction, and I just used a caliber that came to mind as it would be close, not looking for an argument, of course your analysis is correct on paper and I am aware of what you say, but its not quite that cut and dried, because your at the end of bullet reliability at that range, with any bullet as I'm sure you know, since you apparently shoot game at those ranges.....therefore unless you want to be picky then I'll stand by my statement as a fair analogy...If you prefer picky then I bow to your correctness up to a point.
Posts: 41892 | Location: Twin Falls, Idaho | Registered: 04 June 2000
Way back when I was first getting interested in photography I was lucky that we had a family friend who was a professional photographer, and one time when I was talking to him about what sort of zoom lens to buy he looked at me and said "The best zoom lens is your feet!"
I think that analogy still holds true for rifles in this situation too.
Posts: 7763 | Location: Between 2 rivers, Middle USA | Registered: 19 August 2000
Firearm proficiency is attained by using the firearm often. Some of those old timers could shoot as far as was needed then. Don't forget that "sniping" has been around for awhile. Snipers were present in The Battle Of Champlain, and in all sorts of wars. Even buffalo hunters knew how to shoot their game from afar. Their rifles were not as flat shooting as the ones we can use nowadays, but they learned how to use the rainbow trajectory well.
The main difference I can think of between the "old" shooters and the ones nowadays, is the number of hours they spent using their guns in self defense, or just to kill game and humans. Nowadays we (the lucky ones) have to accrue "leave time" at work so we can go hunting (game, not humans) for a week or two each year.
Yes, we know BC, SD, bullet expansion, and a whole bunch of theory. They just shot their guns without thinking about all the BS.
Posts: 2448 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 25 May 2002
Ray what I get tired of is people saying this gun or that gun can't kill deer. We all know that it takes a lot less to kill them then most people think. Given that people regularly kill deer with hand guns that don't even come close to the power of rifle ammo. So if you lung shot a deer at 20 yds with a 357 and 400 foot pounds the deer well die if you take a bullet of the same weight and hit the deer with the same vel and energy in the same place dead deer. It dosen't matter if you hit that deer at 20 yards or 2000 yds you end up with a dead deer. As you said in other posts a 22rf well kill deer if hit in the right place. So As long as your able to hit them in the right place with enough Vel. and energy you have a dead deer. I am not saying to go blazing at deer past your skill level but given the right set of facts and the right rifle I well kill deer out past 400 yds just as dead as if I shot them at 100 yds.
Posts: 19396 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001
We've absorbed the "gotta-have-the-latest-greatest-newest" mentality that we've been bombarded with the past 40 years. I'm all for innovation and improvement, but we go through rifles/calibers like kids go through Nike shoes. Last year's offering is out of style, gotta have this years version. How long are these newest calibers going to be "in" How long before the WSM or RUM calibers are considered plain vanilla?
No doubt there are a higher percentage of folks that frequent this forum that are exceptions, but otherwise I'm of the opinion that the majority of hunters are poorly prepared to be shooting at big game over 300 yards. The emphasis on longrange calibers, rifles, and scopes has far outstripped most shooters abilities to hit things at that kind of distance. People think if they throw dollar bills at equipment, they can buy hits at longer distances.
Some shotgun shooters suffer from the same affliction too. A so-so sporting clays shooter with a three thousand dollar shotgun, so he buys a eight thousand dollar one. About a year later he isn't getting much better so he buys the twelve grand version.
After awhile these types go back to golfing. This is a good thing, because then the rest of us can buy there guns at reduced prices!
------------------ "shoot 'em if you got 'em!"
Posts: 3276 | Location: Western Slope Colorado, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001
Defining long range as over 300 or 400 yards is going to tempt people into taking 250/300 yard shots which lets face it in reality are bloody long shots. In reality a 175 yard shot at a deer in poor light standing still briefly as you whistle is a very long shot.
Stalking is a varied sport. Creeping up and shooting an unsuspecting (or suspecting) deer is great. So is accurate shooting of a cull animal at a range great enough to test your ability. The key is to be happy in yourself that what you are doing is sporting or good practice.
Posts: 2258 | Location: Bristol, England | Registered: 24 April 2001
P dog, I did say that a 22 L.R. is an excellent deer gun, the rest of the post read "if you modify your hunting style to fit the caliber" in this cas 25 yard head shots do fine...and even a heart shot.
Now I'll apply that at 600 yards with a 30-378..Are you capable of a heart shot or head shot at that range? Is it possible that you might miss by 6 or 8 inches and gut shoot the animal or could you possibly shoot 3 inches low and break a leg....
There must be quite a number of skilled shooters in cyberspace, but I'm afraid I'm not in their skill class because although I'd never miss at those ranges on a standing target, the chance of me wounding is greater than I care to risk.....
Ray A I am very capable of heart and lung shots at 600 yds a 180 or 200 gr out of a 30 378 well kill very well with one at that range.If you would of read the rest of my post I said Under the right set of facts I well place the shot right on the money. I do not belive in blasting at every 600 yd shot but when things are right no trouble.
Posts: 19396 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001
What about the old fashioned technique of figuring out how and where they come and go, then waiting for them? Of couse it means you can't talk, smoke, drink, read a hunting "how to" book and get laid while you're waiting, so it might be difficult on the modern "multi tasking" man whose life operates at 1.5 GHz. But its still possible, even if you have to lie flat and still in camo.
[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 10-31-2001).]
Posts: 36231 | Location: Laughing so hard I can barely type. | Registered: 21 April 2001
OK, for complete lack of sense...I will wade into this one.
I took my longest ever shot at a deer at 500+ yards (paced yards, no one even heard of laser rangefinders then) in the mid '70s (I forget what year) with a (GASP!) Rem 660 (or 600, I forget which) in .243. It had a (then) super powerful Redfield 3-9 on it that I had time to crank to 9x. I shot it from a rest, (backpack-no one used those damn bipod thingys then, I still don't, think they're stupid) I had watched him for about 5 min through the scope waiting for him to step out from the tree he was under. One shot, behind the shoulder, and he was down. It was a handload, but I don't remember what bullet (wasn't even a boattail) or powder (I think it was win748 or 760) There was no chance to get closer as it was all open ground between us, and he knew I was there somewhere, just not sure where I was. He kicked his legs a couple of times and was still. I had chambered another round and watched him through the scope. I'm not sure I could have hit him again in a good spot if he did manage to get up and run for it. My point? Not sure I have one. Should I have not shot him? I don't know, I was pretty confident in the range estimate, and my ability to make the shot, I was in a rock solid kneeling position and rested not winded, or I wouldn't have tried it. If I would have wounded him and he got away? I would have felt terrible guilt. Would I take the same shot again today? I'm not sure if I would or not, maybe not, and I shoot larger calibers today-257 ackley, 338wm, and up from there. I guess my point, or lack of one is that it was all low tech, non-beanfield equipment. This was in S. AZ. at couez whitetail (very small if you're not familliar with them), where ranges under 300yds are considered "close".
But seriously I couldn't agree with Paul H. more. Too many people are trying to use technology to replace skill and hard work.
