c"mon, really. How often has anyone who actually hunts, rather than just talks about hunting, lose or pass up a deer(or anything else) because his rifle/bullet is"nt up to it?
I"ve read some very interesting posts here by hunters who probably know a lot more than me about terminal balistics, and calibre comparison, but if i go hunting and come home empty handed, it"s because i did"nt see anything, not because i did"nt have enough gun!
What about looking at HUNTING rather that just SHOOTING. Don"t get me wrong, i"m a gun nut too, but is"nt this forum about hunting?
If everyone here were honest, would"nt they admit that more often than not, they come home empty handed(surely it"s not just me!), because they saw either no deer, or the wrong deer?
You can carry a special edition, hand built, gold inlayed, custom engraved,hand lapped, stress relieved,heavy barrelled,500 elephant express, with the most expensive scope money can buy, but it won"t make you SEE any more deer!
Most game is shot at 100yds or less, and just about any centre fire from 22 up will kill deer, with off the shelf ammo and an out of the box rifle.
Lets have more discussion on hunting! Technique, tips, time of day, using wind, terrain, there"s so much to think about that i believe we"re getting bogged down by market driven articles in gun magazines.
Good shooting

If common sense were to dictate what was discussed here it would get boring. Most of us would then go back to spending too much time at the bars.

75% of this is all about the entertainment value. This place reminds me of the t.v. show Cheers....most of us are just looking for a place where everybody knows our name, (real or imaginary).

Just ignore the "my caliber is the greatest" stuff. Filter through all of that and you will indeed learn stuff.

BRASS THIEF

I disagree several years ago I passed on a shot on a big elk. The bull was going straight away from me at about 175 - 200 yrds. I has hunting
with a .270 and passed on the shot. I knew my .270 would kill that elk but I didn't know if I would ever find him. I switch to a .338 mag and the following year had the same shot on
a moose in BC. The bullet entered at the hip and lodged under the skin on the far side of his neck. The mooses front legs folded and he did a complete foward roll. I may have killed that moose with my .270 but I don't think I would have gotten as much penatration or close to the same results. Just my opinion

quote:

Originally posted by brass thief:
c"mon, really. How often has anyone who actually hunts, rather than just talks about hunting, lose or pass up a deer(or anything else) because his rifle/bullet is"nt up to it?

I've passed on shots while hunting with a 223 that would have been a chip shot with 30'06. I wait for better shots - clearer, closer, better angle, less motion - all the time when hunting with bows, pistols, muzzleloaders, and rifles. You're right though, ballistics are not the end all. But knowing the limits of our skill and the capabilities of our equipment should affect our technique and tactics if our hunting ethic calls for personal discipline.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
If common sense were to dictate what was discussed here it would get boring. Most of us would then go back to spending too much time at the bars.

75% of this is all about the entertainment value. This place reminds me of the t.v. show Cheers....most of us are just looking for a place where everybody knows our name, (real or imaginary).

Just ignore the "my caliber is the greatest" stuff. Filter through all of that and you will indeed learn stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by brass thief:
Most game is shot at 100yds or less, and just about any center fire from 22 up will kill deer, with off the shelf ammo and an out of the box rifle.

We rarely shoot deer and antelope under 200 yds and rely on a rangefinder to get the distance correct for the shot.

100 yards would be great.

Well now....

My wife and I were hunting moose by canoe on a lake in the Northwest Territories many years ago. We came across the mouth of a little inlet about 300 yards deep, and at the furthest-inland part of the inlet was a browsing cow moose. There was a tiny island in the inlet, and we put it between us and the moose and landed on it. My wife crawled across the island (about 20 yards) and had a perfect prone position with a log rest.....range, about 150 yards.

However, the moose was squarely butt-end to us, and head down in dense willow and scrub spruce. My wife's rifle was a M77 in .338, loaded with Nosler Partition 210s. My wife (I'm PROUD of her, then and now) refused the shot because of the angle, and held the sight picture for almost HALF AN HOUR until the moose walked straight into the bush without offering a better angle. She was right then, and she's still right today. As I said, she made me proud.

That"s more like it!
I"ll admit that on rare occasions, more gun would be useful, but it"s touted here as if it"s the answer to harvesting game, and negates all other skills or knowledge.
Bruce"s wife showed patience and an understanding of shot placement that brings honour and class to our sport that is lost today in our worship of the rifle it"self.
good shooting

I passed on the biggest deer that I ever saw on one of the islands I hunt up here. It was about 400 yards and looking right at me. I was using a 22-250 with 70 grain speers. I had no doubt I would hit it . But I was not confident that the deer would stick around after the shot.

My buddy took the shot with a 300 win mag. And we still had to finish it off after finding the deer.

Well, I don"t know your hunting situation or terrain, but at the risk of starting a whole other discussion, maybe we don"t have to shoot at every animal we see on the horizon.
The skills required to harvest an animal at 400yds are purely shooting related, apart from an understanding of anatomy and shot placement.
To me, when HUNTING,if an animal is spotted at that distance then i"d be looking at closeing the distance using terrain,wind direction, knowledge of the area, etc, or just accepting that it"s too far for the rifle i might be carrying. Sometimes we"ll just have to let one walk if it can"t confidently be killed at that range.
HUNTING skills are about putting ourselves at the right distance(in range, but not too close as to be scented or spotted) from the target animal, to present a sporting oportunity, balanced against a humane shot. This requires more than just a rifle so powerful that it will kill the largest of game from here to the horizon.
RMILLER, i"m not saying you don"t have hunting skills, i"m just saying that maybe we all need to look at whether we"re getting caught up in an attitude where we think that if you"ve got enough ft/lbs you can kill anything you can see through your bino"s.
good shooting

Sorry, i"ve been wrong all along!
Having read some posts by some other experts(they must be experts if they get so worked up about what they"re saying), i have decided to sell my underpowered rifles and buy a spotting scope and a howitzer.I shall then be the envy of all my friends as i"ll be able to kill every deer i see, and even some that i did"nt. Then i will have embraced the true spirit of the modern hunter.(and it"ll be ethical, so long as i"m not behind a fence!)
good shooting

I believe one thing fuels most of these arguments....Boredom!

I have passed up shots, the worst one was the biggest bull elk I've seen, and I was deer hunting with my .25-06. The .338 was in the truck 4 miles back. Things happen, if I could have gotten a closer shot I was sure of I'd have done it. Nate

I am more concerned about penetration than ft/lbs when hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:
I am more concerned about penetration than ft/lbs when hunting.

That deer also had us made as we were walking across an open field.

Well that supports my theory that ft/lbs or penetration don"t help when the deer spots you!
I"d rather be downwind with a 243 than upwind with Winmag!
good shooting