Deer Hunting Forums banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I understand the qus

I understand the qustieon but suggest that it is not a realistic qustieon. Here's what I mean. If you are financially able to hunt every big game animal on the Earth then you can afford to purchase more than one rifle. The cost of the rifle is probably the smallest expense of a hunting trip. For example, if you wanted to shoot the Marco Polo Sheep in the Himalayas you want a flat-shooting rifle that will reach out a long distance, say 300 yards or so, and kill the sheep at such a distance. If you were shooting a Cape Buffalo you would want a heavy bullet that will smash through massive amounts of bone and horn and deliver massive tissue destruction. For that you don't want to use the same rifle and caliber you use for the sheep. Then if you want to shoot an American antelope you want a light bullet at high velocity, again for long range, but you don't need as heavy a bullet as you would use for the sheep. If you want a moose, you might want something in between. I've hunted grizzly in Alaska, moose in Alaska and British Columbia, plains antelope in Africa and the USA, deer, caribou and elk in the USA (lower 48). I've used a .375 H H (grizzly, moose and elk and African Antelope), a .300 Weatherby Magnum (elk and caribou and moose), a 7mm Rem Mag (caribou, deer, African antelope and American antelope), a .264 Win Mag (antelope in Montana, deer in California). Now, over the years my favorite caliber became the .375 H H mag. I handload so that gave me tremendous variety and I had a custom made rifle which was extremely accurate. Also I practice a lot and the recoil didn't bother me (though I freely admit it kicks like hell). So, if you asked for a recommendation for just one gun, I'd vote for the .375 but that's not a realistic approach. Also, I wouldn't (and didn't) begin with the .375. I'd start with something like the 7mm Rem Mag, hunt most big game in the USA and when I was ready for grizzly I'd get the .375. Just one man's opinion.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,710 Posts
Yes but sometimes it's also nice to know that when you Aim and Pull, they get hit and go down...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
there are always those who seem to think bigger is better. those that buy the big canon figure out it is practically worthless in the field! when it comes to a good deer rifle, less is more.

bullets for those kind of guns are made for cxp3 and 4(thick skin heavy frame) game and fail to expands properly.

if there is such a thing as too dead it was wasted on the terrain behind the deer after the round failed to expand and sailed right threw like a full metal jacket, that is providing you even hit the target under all that recoil from a field position or unsupported rest. now, does that mean its not going to kill a deer? sure it will, but why put yourself at a disadvantage if you dont have to?

kind of overboard for a deer if you ask me.

just my 2 cents
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,710 Posts
well there nothing really here in NH that needs that much gun, but then again there are no degrees of dead.:w00t::w00t::crazy::crazy:
Yeah It is a large Caliber choice for the typical New Hampshire hunter and he never said it was chosen for deer but Ronn's ready for anthing now even the X-Large game.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
do moose and bear fall in that thick skin heavy frame category? Most folks only notice recoil on the range, not while shooting at game. That said yeah there is no real need for a gun that heavy hitting for deer and probably not moose or bear either. unless thats what a guy wants to use. the 243 is a great caliber. I use a couple different rifles for deer hunting. a 243, a '06, a 7mm mag, and my favorite is my .338 win mag. Its only my favorite cause it shoots so darn good or I shoot it well. depends on how you look at it. I just like rifles and have all kinds. the .338 rum is one I always wanted. Oh and its one of the best calibers for long range tack driving. Very much like the .338 lapua only you can buy ammo for it. Its all a mater of taste. a guy doesn't need a car with 800 horse power but it would be fun to take for a ride. its one of those deals. welcome to the board and jump in anytime anywhere. theres nothing better than talking hunting and shooting.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
The pics arent the b

The pics arent the best either. I think only the M95s have a notch/lug beihnd the bolt handle as a half assed added safety to retain the bolt. Can't see if this has that or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
do moose and bear fall in that thick skin heavy frame category? Most folks only notice recoil on the range, not while shooting at game. That said yeah there is no real need for a gun that heavy hitting for deer and probably not moose or bear either. unless thats what a guy wants to use. the 243 is a great caliber. I use a couple different rifles for deer hunting. a 243, a '06, a 7mm mag, and my favorite is my .338 win mag. Its only my favorite cause it shoots so darn good or I shoot it well. depends on how you look at it. I just like rifles and have all kinds. the .338 rum is one I always wanted. Oh and its one of the best calibers for long range tack driving. Very much like the .338 lapua only you can buy ammo for it. Its all a mater of taste. a guy doesn't need a car with 800 horse power but it would be fun to take for a ride. its one of those deals. welcome to the board and jump in anytime anywhere. theres nothing better than talking hunting and shooting.
when you say it shoots good what exactly to you mean by that? it think most people can shoot a smaller cartridge better than a larger one.

and black bear in your neck of the woods is considered cxp2. yes one could argue that moose is heavy framed but not thick skinned, which would make it cxp 3 catagory. standard cartridges work great on either moose or bear and a magnum isn't required (although one may desire the extended range).

when i think of a .338, cape buffalo and elephant come to mind thats all.

the maximum point blank range on the .338 is about 285 yds with a 250 grain bullet, about the same as a .243 win. it doesnt offer extended range for long range hunting, such as a 300. win mag mpbr(320 yds). it also doesnt offer any advantage when i comes to bullet selection, or weight(heavy and controlled expansion). for me anyways the more recoil the harder it is to shoot. such a gun must be quite heavy to help control heavy recoil. i assume you have the 26 inch barrel to retain maximun velocity, if so, said gun must be quite long. not to mention if you had to add a muzzle break?

i don't mean to offend you or anything, i am just suprised you would select a gun like this, considering the area or continent for that matter that you live/hunt the most!

now if you intend to use the gun on griz or something i could understand you wanting it for use on dangerous game where raw power would come in handy in case the hunter becomes the hunted. but for a primary or "go to" gun for deer hunting is a little hard to comprehend for a guy like me.

but if thats your choice gun stick to it, don't let me tell you what to hunt with, its totally up to you.:smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
do moose and bear fall in that thick skin heavy frame category? Most folks only notice recoil on the range, not while shooting at game. That said yeah there is no real need for a gun that heavy hitting for deer and probably not moose or bear either. unless thats what a guy wants to use. the 243 is a great caliber. I use a couple different rifles for deer hunting. a 243, a '06, a 7mm mag, and my favorite is my .338 win mag. Its only my favorite cause it shoots so darn good or I shoot it well. depends on how you look at it. I just like rifles and have all kinds. the .338 rum is one I always wanted. Oh and its one of the best calibers for long range tack driving. Very much like the .338 lapua only you can buy ammo for it. Its all a mater of taste. a guy doesn't need a car with 800 horse power but it would be fun to take for a ride. its one of those deals. welcome to the board and jump in anytime anywhere. theres nothing better than talking hunting and shooting.
dont get me wrong, i totally understand that such a rifle is awesome, no doubt. i myself would enjoy poping off a few rounds of a cannonlike that(although i couldnt afford to do it on a reg. basis LOL). it is only using it on deer that i am questioning, as well as the statement no degrees of dead. no doubt the rifle is powerfull, but not overkill in a sense that it would mangle the deer to all heck. rather that the bullets massive power will be wasted on the landscape and expand there and not in the deers vitals.

i dont want to sound like i am saying the rifle is too powerful to enjoy.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
don't confuse my .338 win mag with my .338 rum. they are not even close to the same. The win mag was built for african antelope but works well on animals from deer size and up to griz but bullet choice is important when you get up there. The rum was built for long range big bear and elk. I'm saying 500 yards or more. The minimum for moose, the state of NH will tell you, is 3200 ft lbs at the muzzle.
My .338 win mag is a bored out, not rebarreled, 03-A3 with a Timeny trigger set at 2.5 lbs and a bell and carlson syn stock. it might go 10 lbs including the scope. I'm running a 225 fed vital-shok through it. I shoot it well because the bullet goes where I want it to, it feels good and fits me. I'm 6'2" 200 lbs. For me it handles great and is quick for me to get on target. off the bag will shoot nothing but one ragged hole.
I don't know what the "rules" are when it comes to the skin thickness but I can tell you there is at least an 1 1/2 of mud on a moose that will dull a knife in a heartbeat.
the rum is just a toy and I may never hunt with it. well i might if I get a moose tag again but I doubt it cause the win mag is a good choice for moose.

the top rifle is the win mag

the middle is my rum.
anyway i just love my long guns
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
don't confuse my .338 win mag with my .338 rum. they are not even close to the same. The win mag was built for african antelope but works well on animals from deer size and up to griz but bullet choice is important when you get up there. The rum was built for long range big bear and elk. I'm saying 500 yards or more. The minimum for moose, the state of NH will tell you, is 3200 ft lbs at the muzzle.
My .338 win mag is a bored out, not rebarreled, 03-A3 with a Timeny trigger set at 2.5 lbs and a bell and carlson syn stock. it might go 10 lbs including the scope. I'm running a 225 fed vital-shok through it. I shoot it well because the bullet goes where I want it to, it feels good and fits me. I'm 6'2" 200 lbs. For me it handles great and is quick for me to get on target. off the bag will shoot nothing but one ragged hole.
I don't know what the "rules" are when it comes to the skin thickness but I can tell you there is at least an 1 1/2 of mud on a moose that will dull a knife in a heartbeat.
the rum is just a toy and I may never hunt with it. well i might if I get a moose tag again but I doubt it cause the win mag is a good choice for moose.

the top rifle is the win mag

the middle is my rum.
anyway i just love my long guns
very nice looking rifles!!!!

however i disagree with a few things you said

moose are taken regulary with .270 and 30-06 with proven results, so needing 3200 ft lbs at the muzzle seems a little far fetch to me! there is alot more to a clean kill than energy. bullet type(contsruction), sectional density, velocity, hydrostatic shock(trauma) are all equally important, and shot placement is the MOST important. 270, 280, 7mm-08, 30-06, and 300 win mag(for the longest shots) are considered PRACTICAL and IDEAL for moose. and quite frankley are the most used, because thats what most folks have on hand.

if you say there are no degrees of dead, wouldn't that imply that there are no lesser degrees as well, (say a degree of dead achieved with a .270 is lesser dead than a .300 win mag?)

also the .338 does not have a capable maximum point blank range capable of reaching out to 500yds.

the longest range sporting cartridge that i know of is the .300 rum with a mpbr(-+3") of 385 yds if sighted zeroed at aprox. 250 yds.

the .300 cartridges offer longer range, where as the .338 are harder hitting. .338 cartridges have much slower velocities and there far a shorter range, pure and simple.

no one is justified shooting game at 500yds! with almost 3 times the recoil of a .308 win i dont think anyone is going to do any "picking off" at 500 yds! LOL. shots that are taken at that distance are rarely made and usually end up with the animal dying only to die the a misreble death. one should not should beyond their MBLR of their rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
also i can find very little info on the .338 rum? nor can i find a major manufactuer that sells its ammo. i assume its simular to the .338 ultra mag?

do you have the balistics? trajectory? i would be really interested in comparing it to the .338 win mag or even the .375 h+h.

but certainly moose would be a perfect victum of a .338 if one doesnt mind recoil and muzzle blast and could shoot it from a field position. the tougher frame and hide of the moose would give your controlled bullets something to expand against!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I said the state of nh says 3200 ft lbs. i know guys that went with a 308. shot placement is right. The .338 lapua is the long range sniper rifle all over the world. the 250 gr 338 has one of the best BC out there. I shoot woodchucks at 500 yards on a regular basis with that heavy barreled 22.250 in the pic. I shot the M1 garand a 1000 yards open sights so long range isn't the hitch if the shooter knows the rifle and round as well as what it is doing down range. so now its a question of what is the round capable of down range. the lighter the bullet the quicker it loses energy therefore forward momentum. yes there is more arc or drop with a heavy bullet but at distance they perform better than a lighter one.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
the rum is the remington ultra mag. the 338 win mag is just a 300 win mag with shoulders no where near the 375hh. it, the 338 win mag, will carry more energy at the longer ranges than the 300 win mag. again yes more drop but more energy. lesser degrees of dead would be true as well. my hunting buddy shot a bull moose 6 times with a 06, 200 gr i believe, barnes x bullets at 75 yards before it went down. all in the boiler room. that is the minimum muzzle energy the state says is ok. it's not a law or anything its reccomended. most moose hunters here run with nothing less than a 300 win mag and rightly so in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I said the state of nh says 3200 ft lbs. i know guys that went with a 308. shot placement is right. The .338 lapua is the long range sniper rifle all over the world. the 250 gr 338 has one of the best BC out there. I shoot woodchucks at 500 yards on a regular basis with that heavy barreled 22.250 in the pic. I shot the M1 garand a 1000 yards open sights so long range isn't the hitch if the shooter knows the rifle and round as well as what it is doing down range. so now its a question of what is the round capable of down range. the lighter the bullet the quicker it loses energy therefore forward momentum. yes there is more arc or drop with a heavy bullet but at distance they perform better than a lighter one.

and i would like to be 8 feet tall and play for the lakers! LOL

long range shots on game animals are unethical.


even if you had a range finder, there are to many variables at those ranges to risk wounding game and end up losing it. this is were ethics come into play. shooting targets/varminst is one thing, but when taking big game animals they deserve our best shot.

Most shooters simply have no idea that the holdover required at 600 yards is so extreme. Even with a superior long range rifle like a 7mm Magnum zeroed at 300 yards and shooting a 139 grain Hornady spire point bullet at a MV of 3,200 fps, the bullet drop is 51.9 inches at 600 yards. That means you would have to hold over 4 feet above where you wished the bullet to impact.

now if we are shooting a M1 garand with open sights at a 1000yds with open sights, the hold over would be something terrible!!! i m not sure ANY iron sights would compensate for zeroing at those extreme degrees and even if they did you would have to aim so high that the muzzle would cover up the target making it impossible to see it! sorry just not possible to hit anything at those ranges under those circumstances.



and the arguement of a slow but heavy bullet, vs. a fast light bullet has been going on for that last 75 years. that would turn into an endless arguement. they both preform so well the debate rages even to this day which does the job better. to say either or is a bold claim these days. but i favor a fast light bullet because shot placement is #1 and flatter shooting guns make this easier in my opinion. but it would appear as if slow heavy bullets have an advantage at close range and fast and light seem to come into their own at longer ranges.

anyone who thinks long range shooting is realistic might want to check out this article by chuck hawks:
Hunting Rifle Accuracy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
the rum is the remington ultra mag. the 338 win mag is just a 300 win mag with shoulders no where near the 375hh. it, the 338 win mag, will carry more energy at the longer ranges than the 300 win mag. again yes more drop but more energy. lesser degrees of dead would be true as well. my hunting buddy shot a bull moose 6 times with a 06, 200 gr i believe, barnes x bullets at 75 yards before it went down. all in the boiler room. that is the minimum muzzle energy the state says is ok. it's not a law or anything its reccomended. most moose hunters here run with nothing less than a 300 win mag and rightly so in my opinion.

and then you hear the story of the guy with the .243 that puts the moose down with one shot! fact of the matter sometimes they go down easy, sometimes they run for awhile. but just because you use a 300 win mag or better doesnt mean thats not going to happen to you either. i have seen videos on the internet were big canons dont do the job right away.

barnes x bullets are controlled expansion, they are not the right tool for the job on moose. those bullets are practically Full metal jacket rounds! he should have be using a soft point expanding type bullet. a bullet like barnes x will only expand under extreme resistance and is not a good cxp3 bullet choice. your hunting buddy should have gone with something along the lines of remington core-lokt, Hornady Interlock, Speer Hot-Cor, Sierra GameKing ect....

buying a bigger gun to compensate for poor bullet selection is not the answer. even if you hit the vitals square on, if your bullet isn't the right tool for the job it won't work. the -06 has plenty of power to drop a moose with one shot to the vitals if you use the right bullet. people drop moose like no tomarrow with a bow. -06 has way more power than any bow out their!

maybe people wouldnt need such big canons if they would just choose the right bullet for the job. i would imagine that most shooting .300 win mag are not capable of taking game effectively at long ranges using unsupported field positions or off hand shots. seems to me folks these days have been brain washed by gun media to believe that they need a 10-40x50 scope and a 375 h+h magnum! in fact this makes shooting accurately even harder!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
it was at the National Matches at Camp Perry Ohio that i shot the Garrand a 1000 yards.
not only would you have to aim the gun on the skyline to compensate for the bullet drop(and sight, in if possible to sight in at that range). put the slightest puff of wind half way to the target would send the bullet off target by a couple feet!

about 400yds is about the upper limits of iron sights, and ANY sporting cartridge out there as well!

also stating that you shot that distance, is much different than hitting the target at that distance!

i find much of this hard to believe.:no:

and the winddrift at 500yds with a 22-250 is about 3 ft and even if you sighted in at 200yds the bullet drop would be 39 inches(and it just doesnt make sense that you would sight in at 500yds! for a hunting rifle!) even if you had a range finder and knew the wind perfectly those shots are not possible to make on a regular basis. i don't think too many of those woodchucks were hit at that range.:wallbash:

just curious if you like shooting at long ranges why didn't you get a flatter shooting gun? slow and heavy bullets are usally reserved for shorter range.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
Why doesn't the car

Why doesn't the car owner put it all in just one sticker: "Jesus rules with guns". Maybe then he would rlzaiee how ridiculous he is! There is a lot of people in this world I definitely don't want to meet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
ok believe what you like or disbelieve what you like. but heavy bullets are less affected by the wind and will surpass lighter ones at distance, i shot and hit the target at 1000 yards at the National Matches with open sights. there are dead woodchucks here in nh that never heard the report.
heavy bullets are less affected by the wind. but their slower velocity keeps them from reaching out as far. but the lighter bullets drift farther in the wind. but heavy bullets will not go farther than lighter ones. but there are more factors that come into play that determine range than just bullet wieght. like i said this debate can really go on and on. there really is no clear winner when it comes this arguement.:wallbash:

the point i am trying to make is that at those extreme long ranges your odds of making those shots are terrible, and most of the time it will result in a miss or worst a wounded animal that will not be recovered. even a 200 yd shot from a field position is risky enough.

and i am sure there are some woodchucks that hear a bullet wizz past them and say, what the heck was that? and scamper off. LOL:shocking:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Anyone who believes that a short magnum, ultra magnum, or any other cartridge variant automatically yields any substantial benefit in the field is taking severe liberties with history, physics, and common sense. The touting of a specific caliber or cartridge for normal big game hunting use is indefensible; it has never been supported by solid empirical evidence. Bullet selection and shot placement have always dwarfed the touting of individual cartridges; this remains demonstrably true today.

quoted from randy wakeman
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top