Some things I've learned the hard/expensive way....
10-24-2011, 07:44 PM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 442
Some things I've learned the hard/expensive way....
It's funny how this hobby/passion of mine teaches me lessons. Unfortunately, it's usually the hard/expensive way! LOL!
1. Caliber.... For most of the hunting the average Joe will be doing, the caliber that you take a deer or hog with does NOT have to say "MAGNUM" after it. It amazes me how the advertising that companies do pushes us to think that even though the XYZ caliber may be....ok....for deer hunting, the new .300 Wiz Bang Boomerslammer would be SO much better for shooting past 500 yards. (No offense meant Ridge Runner...you're most definitly NOT an average Joe!) I most certainly DO think magnums have their place in hunting big boned critters like elk and larger or for particular LONG range deer hunting situations, but I wounder how many animals have been wounded from a weekend warrior who shoots a couple times a year with his Boomerslammer????
2. Bullet construction.......At a recent trip to the rifle range and talking with a couple guys there, I ran into more than one fella' that was shooting a multi thousand dollar custom rifle with a $1,500 plus scope on it and shooting blue box federal or corlokt ammo. Not that there's anything wrong with the cheap stuff, but why would you skimp on the ONLY piece of your hunting setup that will actually put your target down? I find myself now seeing how a smaller caliber with a quality constructed bullet is superior to a big boomer shooting a bullet likely to come apart during penetration. Example: I would now be much more confident with a shot at a big bodied deer with a .25-06 or .270 loaded with Accubonds, Partitions, or TSX's (or something similar) than my current .300 Win. Mag. with cheaply constructed bullets.
3. Optics, optics, optics. I read somewhere that most hunter are "Over magnified and under scoped". Recently having the opportunity to have a Swarovski scope on my rifle, I can't help but agree. Not to say there aren't quality optics out there that don't cost a grand or more, but you sure do get what you pay for 99% of the time with optics. I always wondered how these guys I read about were taking 200-300 yard shots with scopes using "moderate" magnification. Well, now I know.
4. This is what I think is the absolute most important thing we can pass down to new or young hunters....SHOT PLACEMENT!
This may seem like such a obvious thing, but I know there are many youngsters or new hunters who are simply told to "shoot behind the shoulder". On a broadside shot...sure....but what about if the animal is quartering to or away?
This is me being bored with not much else to do than blab. I want to give a BIG thanks to all of you folks who have taken them time to help educate me, even if you only voiced opinions.
O.K......I'll stop
GO RANGERS!!!!!
SCHOOLCRAFT
1. Caliber.... For most of the hunting the average Joe will be doing, the caliber that you take a deer or hog with does NOT have to say "MAGNUM" after it. It amazes me how the advertising that companies do pushes us to think that even though the XYZ caliber may be....ok....for deer hunting, the new .300 Wiz Bang Boomerslammer would be SO much better for shooting past 500 yards. (No offense meant Ridge Runner...you're most definitly NOT an average Joe!) I most certainly DO think magnums have their place in hunting big boned critters like elk and larger or for particular LONG range deer hunting situations, but I wounder how many animals have been wounded from a weekend warrior who shoots a couple times a year with his Boomerslammer????
2. Bullet construction.......At a recent trip to the rifle range and talking with a couple guys there, I ran into more than one fella' that was shooting a multi thousand dollar custom rifle with a $1,500 plus scope on it and shooting blue box federal or corlokt ammo. Not that there's anything wrong with the cheap stuff, but why would you skimp on the ONLY piece of your hunting setup that will actually put your target down? I find myself now seeing how a smaller caliber with a quality constructed bullet is superior to a big boomer shooting a bullet likely to come apart during penetration. Example: I would now be much more confident with a shot at a big bodied deer with a .25-06 or .270 loaded with Accubonds, Partitions, or TSX's (or something similar) than my current .300 Win. Mag. with cheaply constructed bullets.
3. Optics, optics, optics. I read somewhere that most hunter are "Over magnified and under scoped". Recently having the opportunity to have a Swarovski scope on my rifle, I can't help but agree. Not to say there aren't quality optics out there that don't cost a grand or more, but you sure do get what you pay for 99% of the time with optics. I always wondered how these guys I read about were taking 200-300 yard shots with scopes using "moderate" magnification. Well, now I know.
4. This is what I think is the absolute most important thing we can pass down to new or young hunters....SHOT PLACEMENT!
This may seem like such a obvious thing, but I know there are many youngsters or new hunters who are simply told to "shoot behind the shoulder". On a broadside shot...sure....but what about if the animal is quartering to or away?
This is me being bored with not much else to do than blab. I want to give a BIG thanks to all of you folks who have taken them time to help educate me, even if you only voiced opinions.
O.K......I'll stop
GO RANGERS!!!!!
SCHOOLCRAFT
10-24-2011, 08:07 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Huntin' In Colorado
Posts: 2,910
BULLCHIT!!! LMFAO!!!!
For whatever reason, you failed. Why should the rest of us suffer? You magnum haters are funny as hell!!
What's funny is, I could care less. I just keep reading these post. You guys talk like a rifle that is more effective is not worth it. That is funny as it gets.
For whatever reason, you failed. Why should the rest of us suffer? You magnum haters are funny as hell!!
What's funny is, I could care less. I just keep reading these post. You guys talk like a rifle that is more effective is not worth it. That is funny as it gets.
Last edited by Colorado Luckydog; 10-24-2011 at 08:44 PM.
10-24-2011, 08:40 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Huntin' In Colorado
Posts: 2,910
2. Bullet construction.......At a recent trip to the rifle range and talking with a couple guys there, I ran into more than one fella' that was shooting a multi thousand dollar custom rifle with a $1,500 plus scope on it and shooting blue box federal or corlokt ammo. Not that there's anything wrong with the cheap stuff, but why would you skimp on the ONLY piece of your hunting setup that will actually put your target down? I find myself now seeing how a smaller caliber with a quality constructed bullet is superior to a big boomer shooting a bullet likely to come apart during penetration. Example: I would now be much more confident with a shot at a big bodied deer with a .25-06 or .270 loaded with Accubonds, Partitions, or TSX's (or something similar) than my current .300 Win. Mag. with cheaply constructed bullets.
10-25-2011, 12:01 AM
#5
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by schoolcraft 
2. Bullet construction.......At a recent trip to the rifle range and talking with a couple guys there, I ran into more than one fella' that was shooting a multi thousand dollar custom rifle with a $1,500 plus scope on it and shooting blue box federal or corlokt ammo. Not that there's anything wrong with the cheap stuff, but why would you skimp on the ONLY piece of your hunting setup that will actually put your target down? I find myself now seeing how a smaller caliber with a quality constructed bullet is superior to a big boomer shooting a bullet likely to come apart during penetration. Example: I would now be much more confident with a shot at a big bodied deer with a .25-06 or .270 loaded with Accubonds, Partitions, or TSX's (or something similar) than my current .300 Win. Mag. with cheaply constructed bullets.
If you are going to post this kind of BS, at least do your homework. The ballistic coefficient of the 300 ultra mag will smoke a 25.06 or a .270 like a big free bag of weed. Please prove me wrong.
Colorado,
For someone who "doesn't care", you seem to have some very strong opinions about ballistic coefficient. Wouldn't argue with your statement about the .300 Ultra smoking a .25-06 in the BC department at all........but that wasn't what my post was about. It was about BULLET CONSTRUCTION.
Take a block of ballistic gel at 100 yards and fire a 180gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip out of your .300 Ultra then take another block of gel and fire a 130gr. Barnes TSX from a .270 Win. You might be VERY suprised at which of those bullets held together better and penetrated deeper.
If you live in Colorado, then I would assume that you're able to hunt elk. You're a very lucky person, and your .300 Ultra is well served for that application. I am BY NO MEANS a magnum hater. Never claimed to be. I just had a .300 Win. Mag. built myself. (big mistake....I just don't need that large of a caliber). I stated ealier that the great majority of game can be taken with calibers NOT ending in "magnum". Just like a person can cleanly take an elk with a .30-06 with well constructed bullets and some common sense range limitations. Yes, your .300 Ultra shooting the same bullet as that 06' will give you considerably more range to work with.....which is why I mentioned that magnums had their place for big boned game like elk and for longer range situations.
Why do you feel the need to jump on someones post and call it BS? Especially considering I simply stated that bullet construction was important. I guess I could ask you that question. When you take your .300 Ultra on an elk hunt, is bullet construction important to you? Or do you buy/load the most inexpensive bullet you can find?
Of course you don't.....I've read your post for years and you certainly know what your talking about. I think you read my post and took a detour from it's intended meaning, and there was no reason for the "BS" comment.
SCHOOLCRAFT
2. Bullet construction.......At a recent trip to the rifle range and talking with a couple guys there, I ran into more than one fella' that was shooting a multi thousand dollar custom rifle with a $1,500 plus scope on it and shooting blue box federal or corlokt ammo. Not that there's anything wrong with the cheap stuff, but why would you skimp on the ONLY piece of your hunting setup that will actually put your target down? I find myself now seeing how a smaller caliber with a quality constructed bullet is superior to a big boomer shooting a bullet likely to come apart during penetration. Example: I would now be much more confident with a shot at a big bodied deer with a .25-06 or .270 loaded with Accubonds, Partitions, or TSX's (or something similar) than my current .300 Win. Mag. with cheaply constructed bullets.
If you are going to post this kind of BS, at least do your homework. The ballistic coefficient of the 300 ultra mag will smoke a 25.06 or a .270 like a big free bag of weed. Please prove me wrong.
Colorado,
For someone who "doesn't care", you seem to have some very strong opinions about ballistic coefficient. Wouldn't argue with your statement about the .300 Ultra smoking a .25-06 in the BC department at all........but that wasn't what my post was about. It was about BULLET CONSTRUCTION.
Take a block of ballistic gel at 100 yards and fire a 180gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip out of your .300 Ultra then take another block of gel and fire a 130gr. Barnes TSX from a .270 Win. You might be VERY suprised at which of those bullets held together better and penetrated deeper.
If you live in Colorado, then I would assume that you're able to hunt elk. You're a very lucky person, and your .300 Ultra is well served for that application. I am BY NO MEANS a magnum hater. Never claimed to be. I just had a .300 Win. Mag. built myself. (big mistake....I just don't need that large of a caliber). I stated ealier that the great majority of game can be taken with calibers NOT ending in "magnum". Just like a person can cleanly take an elk with a .30-06 with well constructed bullets and some common sense range limitations. Yes, your .300 Ultra shooting the same bullet as that 06' will give you considerably more range to work with.....which is why I mentioned that magnums had their place for big boned game like elk and for longer range situations.
Why do you feel the need to jump on someones post and call it BS? Especially considering I simply stated that bullet construction was important. I guess I could ask you that question. When you take your .300 Ultra on an elk hunt, is bullet construction important to you? Or do you buy/load the most inexpensive bullet you can find?
Of course you don't.....I've read your post for years and you certainly know what your talking about. I think you read my post and took a detour from it's intended meaning, and there was no reason for the "BS" comment.
SCHOOLCRAFT
10-25-2011, 03:35 AM
#6
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 970
I used to huint with a magnum. A .44 magnum. It was a great rifle to begin hunting with.
No one should ever feel that I was overgunned with a good old .44 mag rifle. I always felt a bit undergunned, yet I took deer with it. Good times indeed.
No one should ever feel that I was overgunned with a good old .44 mag rifle. I always felt a bit undergunned, yet I took deer with it. Good times indeed.
10-25-2011, 04:07 AM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
Second - do some homework of your own. The .300 Ultra Mag itself doesn't have a ballistic coefficient. BCs are a function of the bullet, not of the chambering. Your .300 RUM might push it faster and farther as a result, but I can send the same bullet (with its associated BC) through my .308, .30-06, or .300 WBY.
We all know that you're a flag-waving fan of the .300 RUM. That's fine if it works for you. This isn't a football game.
10-25-2011, 04:46 AM
#8
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 442
Second - do some homework of your own. The .300 Ultra Mag itself doesn't have a ballistic coefficient. BCs are a function of the bullet, not of the chambering. Your .300 RUM might push it faster and farther as a result, but I can send the same bullet (with its associated BC) through my .308, .30-06, or .300 WBY.
Good point HB.....
Colorado,
Take 2 bullets with similar/identical BC's. Let's say a 200gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip and a 200gr. Nosler Accubond out of your .300 RUM ......virtually identical BC's right?
Put both of those through an elks shoulder and see if the Accubonds CONSTRUCTION doesn't win every time.
Good point HB.....
Colorado,
Take 2 bullets with similar/identical BC's. Let's say a 200gr. Nosler Ballistic Tip and a 200gr. Nosler Accubond out of your .300 RUM ......virtually identical BC's right?
Put both of those through an elks shoulder and see if the Accubonds CONSTRUCTION doesn't win every time.
10-25-2011, 04:49 AM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Huntin' In Colorado
Posts: 2,910
It's just every other post is bashing magnums. There is nothing wrong with them. In fact they are better in my opinion. I just don't get it. But you're right, I should take a chill pill. Magnums are like Tim Tebow. People either love them or they hate them.
10-25-2011, 06:54 AM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pine Hill Alabama USA
Posts: 1,280
I agree totally about the stomper magnums schoolcraft. They have their place but way too many people have been led down the path to thinking they "need" one for deer hunting by TV shows and hunting magazines. The average shot distance on deer in my neck of the woods here in Alabama is probably less than 100 yards. There is absolutely no advantage to using a magnum on deer sized animals at such short ranges. But lord have mercy you should see some of the howitzers being dragged into the woods down here to shoot at these relatively small southern deer at point blank ranges. I've seen some of these guys here with such a wicked recoil induced flinch from their whiz bang super uber duper mag that they couldn't keep 3 shots on a sheet of loose leaf notebook paper at 100 yards. Most would have been waaaay better off with a 7mm-08 or a 270 but of course they wouldn't hear of shooting any gun less manly than their super duper (faster than your gun) hyper warp drive atomic pile driver. Why don't you realize that their uber mag only drops 2 inches at 400 yards? Of course they couldn't hit a dump truck at 400 yards with it but that's beside the point. It only drops 2 inches man!!!!!
I saw a guy dropping a deer off at a processor one night that he had shot with a 300 WSM quartering hard away from him at a distance of about 60 yards. (I know because I spoke with him) Bullet entered just in front of the right ham angling to-wards the left front shoulder. I watched them jerk the hide off that deer and there is no doubt in my mind that the entire front half of that deer had to be thrown away. At that range the hyper velocity impact had totally fragmented the bullet and that deer looked like a car had hit it. The tenderloins and "both" front shoulders were bloodshot as hell. Gut and bowel content were everywhere. What a waste.
I saw a guy dropping a deer off at a processor one night that he had shot with a 300 WSM quartering hard away from him at a distance of about 60 yards. (I know because I spoke with him) Bullet entered just in front of the right ham angling to-wards the left front shoulder. I watched them jerk the hide off that deer and there is no doubt in my mind that the entire front half of that deer had to be thrown away. At that range the hyper velocity impact had totally fragmented the bullet and that deer looked like a car had hit it. The tenderloins and "both" front shoulders were bloodshot as hell. Gut and bowel content were everywhere. What a waste.