Use Enough Gun

[MThuntr]

......USER DELETED RESPONSE....

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Same old thing, a grumpy know it all answering questions that no one is asking.

 

[Fire_9]

I just do not understand settling for so much less? And even for new young hunters, why limit them?

All of the rounds mentioned above are fantastically accurate, many are very mild of recoil and proven killers.

MR

If you would have stayed with the magnums and long actions I would have understood your position. But for you to say that shooting a .243 is “settling for so much less” and then say .260 or 6.5x55 has real field utility doesn’t make any sense at all.

I suggest you and Ontario spend a little time reading through this thread...

.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET. “Bullets matter more than headstamps.” “Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”. I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened. The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223...

www.rokslide.com

 

[madtom]

Who will take the bait and wrestle him next?

 

[LuketheDog]

Use Enough Gun

The last elk I shot was a cow, taken about 190 yards away. An easy shot. Just as I fired, and elk behind her, moved closer and she hopped forward. There was nothing I could have changed at that point. Had she waited a full second later to jump, my bullet would have gone through both lungs. Had she jumped a second earlier, I would not have fired yet and would have readjusted my aim.

As it was my bullet ended up hitting her right in her hip and going right through and destroying both joints.

She was a two legged elk and down. I shot her with a 300 win mag and a 168 grain TTSX Barnes bullet.

I shot her within the last one or two minutes of legal hunting time. If I had used a much lesser round she would have been a 3 legged elk and have gotten away.

I have a friend who did all his deer hunting with a .243. Many times I commented that he was not using enough gun to deal with a problem if it arose. He liked neck shots, which I do not. There is too little margin for error compared the heart lung area. I prefer the high double lung shot best of all.

Anyway, his little .243 bullet hit the bucks shoulder blade, broke up and did not penetrate. The deer ran away. Left public land and entered private land where the owner hated hunters and it turned in a real mess.

When I read posts about using absolute minimum calibers, like any .25 as an all around deer/elk rifle, or hunting deer or boar with a .223, I just wonder why anyone would choose a caliber that left so little, if any margin for error.

One day I was hunting a 3,000 acre barley ranch. I was on a very well used boar trail. My eye caught the tips of a big boars ears and I dropped flat. The wind was with me and I used a little scrap of rabbitbush for cover, the boar that came in was beyond huge. Later after being gutted he weighed in about 330 pounds. As he came straight in he offered no shot at all. His jaw was covering his chest and shooting at the thick sloped skull was iffy. As he approached me he was opening and closing his mouth.

Just as his mouth opened and his jaw dropped. I put a 160 grain bullet from my 280 right down his throat at no more than 50 yards. It went all the way through into his lungs and he rolled over and spouted light colored lung blood two feet in the air,,,just like a whale

For deer, I think any 6.5 would be using enough gun. I have a 6.5x55 Swede in a model 70 and always liked those 160 grain round nosed bullets. They had working clout.

For elk, a 7mm Rem mag or it’s ballistic equal the 280AI (which I now have)would be my minimum. In both of these choices I am assuming the use of premium bullets. I have found the Barnes TTSX bullets to be so lethal, I use 150 grain TTSX for longer work and have heavy round nosed Lapua bullets when up close and personal

In times past I used to live in Northwestern Wyoming and hunted bushels of Antelope when over the counter tags for residents were easy.

I did use a .270 for them on the flats and way up in the mortician meadows,,,Grizz country. I used to load the 180 round nosed Barnes Originals. The twist was not ideal for long range work but I had other lighter bullets for such srvice. Those bullets looked like half a pencil and would penetrate forever.

I still do not understand this clinging to flat, fast tiny bullets.

Shot placement is ideal an theoretical. Real world situations always afford surprises.

MR

USE ENOUGH GUN On Hunting Big Game: Robert Ruark, Stuart Rose: 9781199348791: Amazon.com: Books

USE ENOUGH GUN On Hunting Big Game [Robert Ruark, Stuart Rose] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. USE ENOUGH GUN On Hunting Big Game

www.amazon.com

What a load of hot garbage, learn how to shoot...and get a newer book

 

[LuketheDog]

Who will take the bait and wrestle him next?

View attachment 175508

Based on diction and expert status, I think we are witnessing the return of @diamond hitch or one of his close relations at least. Is that video of the giant wild pig he shot down the throat?

 

[OntarioHunter]

I think we live in an age when "adequate cartridge" discussions are not really helpful (except for range considerations). "Adequate bullet" conversations are more relevant. I'd rather hunt elk with a .243 and 90 grain E-tips than a 7mmRM with 139 grain A-max's.

Sorry, I hit the wrong button. Bullet/powder/ammo manufacturers try to make us believe their technology can defy the laws of physics so that a 95 gr cartridge will perform with more reliable killing power than a 180 gr one. They do this because new stuff sells ... whether it's worth a damn or not. Old stuff is ... old and uninteresting. Marketing change for the sake of change is the law of evolution applied to modern business economics. Unfortunately, unlike the laws of nature that guide evolution, advertising can create a false reality. For most things like vacuum cleaners and hair dryers the "law of supply and demand" is fine. Only the consumer's pocketbook gets hurt if his spirit of adventure is a failure. But for hunting there is the animals to consider. I'm not going to gamble with my ethical obligation to dispatch game as expeditiously as possible. Maybe technology can bend the laws of physics a bit, but I won't take risks. Too many things can go wrong even in the best scenarios. So I take enough gun. Is too much gun just as unethical? Good subject for another thread.

 

[ZMT588]

 

[Fire_9]

Sorry, I hit the wrong button. Bullet/powder/ammo manufacturers try to make us believe their technology can defy the laws of physics so that a 95 gr cartridge will perform with more reliable killing power than a 180 gr one. They do this because new stuff sells ... whether it's worth a damn or not. Old stuff is ... old and uninteresting. Marketing change for the sake of change is the law of evolution applied to modern business economics. Unfortunately, unlike the laws of nature that guide evolution, advertising can create a false reality. For most things like vacuum cleaners and hair dryers the "law of supply and demand" is fine. Only the consumer's pocketbook gets hurt if his spirit of adventure is a failure. But for hunting there is the animals to consider. I'm not going to gamble with my ethical obligation to dispatch game as expeditiously as possible. Maybe technology can bend the laws of physics a bit, but I won't take risks. Too many things can go wrong even in the best scenarios. So I take enough gun. Is too much gun just as unethical? Good subject for another thread.

Maybe people are getting smarter and realize that you don’t need a 180 gr bullet to kill a deer. It’s not marketing, it’s reality...

 

[Dougfirtree]

Sorry, I hit the wrong button. Bullet/powder/ammo manufacturers try to make us believe their technology can defy the laws of physics so that a 95 gr cartridge will perform with more reliable killing power than a 180 gr one. They do this because new stuff sells ... whether it's worth a damn or not. Old stuff is ... old and uninteresting. Marketing change for the sake of change is the law of evolution applied to modern business economics. Unfortunately, unlike the laws of nature that guide evolution, advertising can create a false reality. For most things like vacuum cleaners and hair dryers the "law of supply and demand" is fine. Only the consumer's pocketbook gets hurt if his spirit of adventure is a failure. But for hunting there is the animals to consider. I'm not going to gamble with my ethical obligation to dispatch game as expeditiously as possible. Maybe technology can bend the laws of physics a bit, but I won't take risks. Too many things can go wrong even in the best scenarios. So I take enough gun. Is too much gun just as unethical? Good subject for another thread.

Well, I hear what you're saying (and my memory says that we may have squared off on this issue once before in the F & S days), but the question of bullet mass is an "adequate bullet" question and I think, fits into my expressed opinion.
That said, if your 180grain bullet sheds half its weight when it hits an elk, mathematics says that there may not be much difference between it and the 90 grain mono bullet that retains 99.7% of its weight (at least in terms of penetration). I'll never fault someone for wanting to use a big old bullet. It generally comes from the right desire (to not see an animal suffer) and big bullets work well. But, when you have bullets on the market that both expand and retain all their weight, it changes the calculus. Personally, I think it you're shooting a .30-06, that 150 grain TTSX is the more ethical choice over the 180 grain Core Lokt.
My larger point is simply that we overestimate the importance of chambering these days. I think we should invest that mental energy in our bullet choices instead.
I hope your doggos are doing well and had a fun season!

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Based on diction and expert status, I think we are witnessing the return of @diamond hitch or one of his close relations at least. Is that video of the giant wild pig he shot down the throat?

You mean the guy who led off by explaining how he shot elk through small tree trunks? I did legitimately enjoy some of his stuff though.

 

[LuketheDog]

You mean the guy who led off by explaining how he shot elk through small tree trunks? I did legitimately enjoy some of his stuff though.

That's the guy, and that's exactly what I was thinking of

 

[1100RemingtonMan]

I think part of it is what bullet you choice is. I have hunted enough with a 6mm Rem it's enough for any Deer I have ran across. I also have no plans to take it Elk hunting.
Deer and Antelope it will do. Matter of fact my next Deer hunt I go on I plan on taking it and leaving my .264 Win Mag at home. Time to get reacquainted with a old friend. I have some new Nosler 95gr BT I would like to try.

 

[Marshian]

The OP’s comments, especially in regard to his minimum elk caliber, ignore the fact that many shooters will not practice as much with the extremely powerful rounds due to increased price and development of a flinch.

 

[winmag]

I’m gonna load up some monometals in my 17 Remington for my next elk hunt just to make the Hunt Talkers proud. You haven’t seen an elk hit the dirt like when it gets hit with 20 grains of copper! Anyone that disagrees with me is an old fart that needs to get with the times.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Well, I hear what you're saying (and my memory says that we may have squared off on this issue once before in the F & S days), but the question of bullet mass is an "adequate bullet" question and I think, fits into my expressed opinion.
That said, if your 180grain bullet sheds half its weight when it hits an elk, mathematics says that there may not be much difference between it and the 90 grain mono bullet that retains 99.7% of its weight (at least in terms of penetration). I'll never fault someone for wanting to use a big old bullet. It generally comes from the right desire (to not see an animal suffer) and big bullets work well. But, when you have bullets on the market that both expand and retain all their weight, it changes the calculus. Personally, I think it you're shooting a .30-06, that 150 grain TTSX is the more ethical choice over the 180 grain Core Lokt.
My larger point is simply that we overestimate the importance of chambering these days. I think we should invest that mental energy in our bullet choices instead.
I hope your doggos are doing well and had a fun season! 167 gr Partitions probably shed half their weight

The 165 gr 30-06 Partitions I used in Africa probably shed half their weight after impact. The wildebeest (bottom bullet) fell over instantly shot through right shoulder. We plucked the bullet from hide of opposite shoulder. Distance was about a hundred yards. Standing and shot off the sticks. Beyond easy. Yes, a lot of that bullet disintegrated ... inside the animal. Hence his instant death. The bullet on the top hit the gemsbuck head on in the chest at a full gallop incoming at 15 yds. It was dead on its feet but I shot it again through front shoulder running by at twelve yards. They can get nasty when wounded and that one was too close for wait and see. This was obviously the first bullet as second shot must have been a pass through at that range and angle. Less disintegration because it probably hit no bones. The tracker brought us the bullet after animal was dressed.

Penetration is important but also weight retention. Military ball ammo has great weight retention but I won't shoot animals with it. If I wanted to play the clean pass through game I'd take up bow hunting. Similarly I wouldn't want a bullet that explodes on impact or one that tears a softball size hole on exit. Both have a greater potential for wasting game which is unethical. It's a balancing act. I dropped down from 180 gr to 165 gr for Africa because it was clear conditions were usually not favourable for stalking close. I was shooting off sticks which allowed for longer shots so I dropped down a bit in bullet weight for added distance. And I added some technology per my PH's recommendation. It worked. Would I do it here? Definitely not for moose. No pass through on that standing wildebeest told me the same combination would not be as effective on moose. Larger bullets are fine because I'm a tracker and typically get short range shooting. I still use 165 gr for Montana plains muleys ... until I run out of the bullets ... or mangle a deer. Shots could be longer (though so far nothing over 100 yds).

 

[Bambistew]

I've never seen an elk get away that was shot in the ass, big or small caliber. 1+ rear landing gear taken out = dead elk. Every. Time.

I'm on the hunt for another 243 deer killer. The last one I had was lights out amazing on deer/antelope, dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times, including a couple elk.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Nothing wrong with arrows or big bullets, but the general forum/IG/internet consensus:
Wound an elk with an arrow and never find it, or just plain miss..."It's okay buddy, it happens to everyone in the heat of the moment."
Kill an animal with a bullet that's smaller than some arbitrary number..."You you're an unethical hunter."

These things are never short on entertainment value.

 

[1_pointer]

.243 if a horrible deer cartridge IMHO. Personally seen a lot of deer go unrecovered from guys who were using that gun with an array of bullets. Poor blood trails, non-existent blood trails with perfect shots, I have seen more than enough to know that I would never use a .243 on deer nor would I recommend them to anyone.

Step up to a .308 , there are much heavier and better bullets to choose from without sacrificing much recoil.

To me that's more of a comment on marksmanship and or bullet selection than it is on the cartridge...

I dropped down from 180 gr to 165 gr for Africa because it was clear conditions were usually not favourable for stalking close. I was shooting off sticks which allowed for longer shots so I dropped down a bit in bullet weight for added distance.

LOL! You believed that?

 

[jt13]

I've never seen an elk get away that was shot in the ass, big or small caliber. 1+ rear landing gear taken out = dead elk. Every. Time.

I'm on the hunt for another 243 deer killer. The last one I had was lights out amazing on deer/antelope, dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times, including a couple elk.

I have seen all manner of critters shot in the ass, none have ever gotten away.

One exception would be a deer that had a graze wound right...umm...below his tail... taking just the slightest amount of flesh with it along the way. Apparently he was wounded by another hunter down the ridge that same day (opening day of gun season). Thankfully that buck did not live very long without a butthole, I'd imagine it'd have been rather unpleasant