rather_be_huntin

Let me start out my response by saying I have no intention of an argument and only interested in "spit balling" the situation. I respect just about everyone on these boards and very much enjoy just talking about hunting ,hunting tools, and hunting situations.

To really understand this issue we've got to look at all the elements involved. I do believe the elk guide that in today's world that more elk are wounded by mag's and that only complicates the issue. I will say though that in virtually 100% of those cases however that is not the rifles fault. In these cases it is usually the shooters fault due to poor placement from guys that know little about hunting, go out and buy a big ole mag from Cabelas, pay big bucks to hunt and shoot just enough shots to sight in their rifle. In many cases they aren't even sighted properly. Not only that but it's simply the law of averages. Many more mag's on the hill than 30-30's chasing elk so there will be more woundings AND more kills from mag's.

How can I prove that there have been more elk wounded in history by 30-30's than mags? Of course I can't prove that, there have not been statistics kept on the subject. It's just my opinion but I will say that IMO common sense and experience plays a factor in that opinion. First 30-30's have been around much much longer and used much much more. The bullet is much slower and in many cases lighter. I think most agree there are limitations to the range of the 30-30 cartridge. There are many a hunter, good hunters, that lack the discipline to keep within those limitations when a monster bull is just out of reach. Many a hunter have taken that 250+ yard shot either because they didn't realize they were really at that range or because they scoped their rifle and sincerely thought they could put it where it counts. Let's not forget for many, many years guys only had open sites and range finders were non-existent.

Aside from speed and weight bullet options played a role in this as well and somewhat persist today. Because of the lack of speed and weight premium bullets don't perform as well from this cartridge. These things don't make it inadequate just not quite as "good" as other when considering ALL situations and assuming a shooter can shoot well. Even a mag wouldn't perform as well as they do without the bullet options they have available to them. NO ONE can place a bullet perfectly every time. In optimal situations you will never notice the difference and an elk will be just as dead with a 30-30. But to say a 30-30 can perform like bigger cartridge (notice I didn't limit this to mag's) in capable hands is simply not true and that is very proveable and circles right back to at least a portion of my opinion.

I think something that is very important is being able to shoot your rifle accurately and confidently. Someone that cannot shoot a 300 win mag for example has no buisness hunting elk with it and SHOULD tote the 30-30 with the discipline to understand the limitations of that rifle. IMO if you don't practice and become proficient with ANY rifle you shouldn't hunt at all.

caplock

I believe (rather be hunting) has hit the nail on the head of this one. As I recall the article did not blame the magnum rifles as the problem it was the hunters unfamiliarity with the gun that caused the problems, and the fact that they thought their rifles had an unlimited range. The guide said he had better luck when the hunter showed up with an 30-06 or 270 because they usually new their gun better.