Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Firearms Forum > Guns
 Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!! >

Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

Guns Like firearms themselves, there's a wide variety of opinions on what's the best gun.

Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

Old 12-15-2006, 10:57 AM
  #41  
Nontypical Buck
 
Gangly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,525
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

ORIGINAL: ipscshooter


Seems to me that by making that statement, you are leaving some guesswork in the equation. The only reasonI can think of to "use more gun than necessary" is if you are concerned that you might make a bad shot AND, using more gun than necessary is more likely to lead to making a bad shot (i.e. flinching).A gut shot deer with a 7mm Remington Magnum is still a gut shot deer. I'd rather use my .243,not have to worry about shooting with my eyes closed, and know that the bullet is going to hit the deer exactly where I put the crosshairs.
a 243 is adequate as far as im concerned, but why not take a step up just to be safe because a 257 or a 270 isnt gonna cause a good shooter to start shooting poorly. Going from a 223 to a 338 mag or something could definately do it, but a 243seems to be an obvious better choice for deer shooting than a 22-250 and it wont make 99 percent of the shooters out there shoot poorly. Anything really less than a 243 seems a little on the under-gunned size to me but again, thats just my OPINION and we all know what opinions are like...

After all, if you use a 22-250 or a 223 to kill deer, why not put down the 17hmr's and the 22 hornets and start hunting groundhogs and prarie dogs with BB and pellet guns....afterall, they could kill a prarie dog just as easily if you shoot them in the head so why use the extra weight and speed in a bullet if it isnt needed?

Simple answer...people want to be better safe than sorry and the larger faster rounds are more of a garunteed kill.

Im not jumping on anybody just trying to defend my opinion (which i prolly havent done very well) which i believe everbody should be entitled to do.
Gangly is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 12:06 PM
  #42  
Nontypical Buck
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

ORIGINAL: Chantecler111


Most broadheads that I know of, were actually intended, and designed to hunt deer with, I don't think the .22 Hornet was designed for hunting medium sized game.
Tell that to the 4 deer and 1 hog I lostwith a bow, and to the 5 deer and 2 hogs I have killed with my Hornet.
zrexpilot is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 12:12 PM
  #43  
Boone & Crockett
 
James B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

Most states have minimum calibers for deer. I know that a few don't. Howeverin most states the 22 or 17 would not be legal. That would be a good reason not to use them. In the two states where I hunt most, the 222 is the minimum. The hornet and any rimfires do not meet the laws. Where legal, those guns may be used and although I prefer the 25 caliber as minumum, thats just me.
James B is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 12:19 PM
  #44  
bigcountry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

ORIGINAL: zrexpilot

ORIGINAL: Chantecler111


Most broadheads that I know of, were actually intended, and designed to hunt deer with, I don't think the .22 Hornet was designed for hunting medium sized game.
Tell that to the 4 deer and 1 hog I lostwith a bow, and to the 5 deer and 2 hogs I have killed with my Hornet.
Sure you did
 
Old 12-15-2006, 12:29 PM
  #45  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,224
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

A lot of people talk about using a small caliber and shooting deer in the head. A lot of them will say if I miss at least the deer won't be wounded. That is fine until they are off a little bit and blow their bottom jaw off and they run off to strave to death because they can't eat. We had to shoot one we found that way laying down near a creek trying to drink because someone tried to shoot her in the head and shoot her jaw off instead. It is too easy for the shooter to be off a little or have the deer move a little at the last second. It makes a lot more sense to use a big enough gun and shoot them in the vitals instead of trying to use as small a gun as you can and shoot them in the head.
JeffS is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 12:39 PM
  #46  
Spike
 
ol eagle eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 66
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

ORIGINAL: eldeguello

I tend to agree, yet when discussing wound ballistics, Army experts such as General Hatcher(Hatcher's Notebook) seem to use impact velocity of a given bullet as the measure of whether or not that bullet is capable of inflicting a dangerous wound or not.Energy levels are notincluded as a measure ofwounding ability.
You can calculate energy given velocity and bullet mass. If both of these are in his reports, than probably energy is figured in there as well - maybe just not mentioned. E=mv^2 if I remember correctly. Though I might agree with him, comparing my 270 to a freinds 3006, he has a slight advantage in energy and bullet wieght yet the faster 270 seems to almost always produce larger exit wounds.

ORIGINAL: Gangly
However, all of us will eventually make a bad enough shot to where the size of the round prolly wouldnt make much of a difference...
I shot a beautiful buck with afriends 270 that he said he had sighted in.He didnt tell me that he sighted it into only hit paper at100 yards (not even sure if thats true) and so obviouslyall i did to the deer was wound it at 169 yards. Searched for 2 days for the deer andnever found anything but a chunk of meat from the location where he was shot at. I could have KILLED my friend for that. From that day on I have decided that I would do everything i could to keep from just wounding another animal. Best way i see that happening is to use more gun than neccessary and toshoot only your gun that you sighted in and are comfortable shooting. Leave guesswork to other people who dont know better.
Gangly, that sux about the lost deer. But I am confused if your saying had you used something more powerful than the 270 you would possibly have inflicted enbough damage to recover it? because you start off by saying "...the size of the round prolly wouldnt make much of a difference..."

It is interesting how some poeple consider small rounds perfectly fine and others wouldnt use anything smaller than a 7mm mag. I carry a 270 myself and havent lost a hit deer yet. Infact its been given the nickname by my buddies 'the meat grinder" due to how much damage it inflicts. My most messed up deer happens to be my longest shot I have taken, 225yds. After seing this deer hangin with the skin off, one of my dads older freinds made the comment "I'll never hunt with a gun like that". Somehow all but 3 ribs were broken on one side. It took 2 paper towel 'squares' to cover the wound on one side like a bandaid. And the deer dropped, I could tell since it was on snow and it was laying in a big 'splatter' going in the direction I shot, and no blood anywere else. Of course bullet selection makes a difference... its been many years since I could hunt with a riffle but as I recal I was using 140gr Hornady Custom boattails.

But I am guessing the deer would have been just as dead with a 25-0whatever, 260, 280, 30-06... maybe if it was out a 300 yards there might be more a difference between the different choices, but 225 has been my farthest shot, with almost every singe other shot being under 100.
ol eagle eyes is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 02:21 PM
  #47  
Giant Nontypical
 
skeeter 7MM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 6,921
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

ORIGINAL: James B

Most states have minimum calibers for deer. I know that a few don't. Howeverin most states the 22 or 17 would not be legal. That would be a good reason not to use them. In the two states where I hunt most, the 222 is the minimum. The hornet and any rimfires do not meet the laws. Where legal, those guns may be used and although I prefer the 25 caliber as minumum, thats just me.
As well as theregional legal guidelines to min. cartridges, one must consider the different sub species of whitetails as well. While a big deer in the south might weigh a 150lbs on the hoof in the northern regions this is not the case. I personallyfeel the 1/4 bores are a good min here whereour mature bucks can easily top 300lbs on the hoof.

skeeter 7MM is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 02:58 PM
  #48  
Nontypical Buck
 
Gangly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,525
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

ORIGINAL: ol eagle eyes


ORIGINAL: Gangly
However, all of us will eventually make a bad enough shot to where the size of the round prolly wouldnt make much of a difference...
I shot a beautiful buck with afriends 270 that he said he had sighted in.He didnt tell me that he sighted it into only hit paper at100 yards (not even sure if thats true) and so obviouslyall i did to the deer was wound it at 169 yards. Searched for 2 days for the deer andnever found anything but a chunk of meat from the location where he was shot at. I could have KILLED my friend for that. From that day on I have decided that I would do everything i could to keep from just wounding another animal. Best way i see that happening is to use more gun than neccessary and toshoot only your gun that you sighted in and are comfortable shooting. Leave guesswork to other people who dont know better.
Gangly, that sux about the lost deer. But I am confused if your saying had you used something more powerful than the 270 you would possibly have inflicted enbough damage to recover it? because you start off by saying "...the size of the round prolly wouldnt make much of a difference..."
I firmly believe if i had a larger round that itwouldnt have made a difference. Thats why i said that some shots are bad enough to where it doesnt matter the size of the round. I guess i could have worded a little better or something, but what i was trying to say was that sometimes the shot is horrible and it wouldnt matter what size ammunitions you are using, it wouldnt make a difference like in the deer i wounded. However, in some cases haveing a larger round would definately be of assistance, I just dont ever want to have to come across that situation so I try to stay a little over-gunned so that it never happens. I dont needto hunt with my 30-30 or my 30-06, but i just feel more secure in making a good clean kill shot witheither of those rifles at 200 yards than shooting at a deer head 200 yards away with a 22-250 or a gun ofthe same sorts.I just think its best to go bigger and go for a more realistic and larger target(chestor broadside)shot (not that there arent plenty of people capable of doing deer head shots at 200 yards), but the margin of error is a lot worse when shooting at a head.
Gangly is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 03:06 PM
  #49  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

As much as most of us have tried to explain it, bullets and blades kill in different ways! They will never learn!
I think that most of the "magnum" shooters get the idea, that shooting with the biggest caliber that you can consistantly shoot well with, gives you the best room for error, and that we are for the most part, "overguned" above the '06 range.
It's mostly the "pea-shooters" that I don't get! There is NO "world record" for the "biggest deer with the smallest caliber!" Nor is there any "world record for "hitting hair number 1001 on the neck/head!
"Because I can," is a poor excuse, if it is the only reason that you can give for doing it!
Marksmanship is an important factor, but it is only one factor in "hunting!"
You might be able to out-shoot me, or the next guy, with your off-hand, weak-eye, and a seven day hang-over! So what? You don't have to qualify with a 1/2" group to be a hunter, a 3 or 4" circle is almost twice as small as a reasonable kill zone! As I said, there are no records for that in the hunting world! That is for competition shooting on a gun range!
Shooting something that is so light, that there is absolutely no room for error, is as much or more irresponsible as using something that you can't shoot with your eyes open, thinking that if you miss, the "air wave" will still kill it!




JagMagMan is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 03:14 PM
  #50  
Boone & Crockett
 
James B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
Default RE: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!

yeah our deer are 90 percent big Mule deer where i hunt. I have taken most of my deer with the 308, 6.5x55, 270 and 7MM-08. In that order. Its darn close between the 6.5 and 308. The 25-06 would come next followed by the 250 Savage. The only deer I ever lost was with the 243. I have probably used ten other calibers as well.
James B is offline  

Quick Reply: Could This Be ONE agreeable Point on this Forum???!!!


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.