Obviously a little bit dramatic, but not far off from a conversation I had last night. While I don't doubt that guys like RR can use "high-intensity cartridges" effectively to hunt at long range, the small community of long-range hunters really IS being threatened by guys who think that if they have the right equipment, they can do it too - bar the fact that they can't do it well at 700 yards, but by simply changing their optics they be able to push out to 1200.

Looks are important in that crowd. Long barrel. Muzzle brake. Reloads with Berger VLDs. Rangefinder. Custom scope turrets marked in range increments. And chambered in a "high-intensity" cartridge. But looks don't shoot. And sometimes looks are just cheap imitations and knock-offs of systems that CAN shoot. But, it all comes back to the operator. If the operator can't make everything work in harmony, no amount of money put into gimmicks will make it effective.

The bad thing is, they often like to shoot video of their exploits. How many scenes of animals being crippled at long-range and put up on Youtube will it take for the antis to pick up on it and demand regulatory intervention? Maybe a stretch, but I don't know that anyone can say it couldn't happen. It never happens that the tyros wreck something for the skilled, does it?

And the way I heard it, the ammunition is more like $120 a box.

And CLD - Just for the record, I don't HATE magnums. I just don't like people who profess that they're the solution. .270 didn't bang-flop the deer this year, get a bigger gun. Going out west, get a bigger gun. Shooting past 300 yards, get a bigger gun.

Cayugad - I agree. A lot of "hunters" now think you need a more powerful cartridge for killing game these days. Like the animals have gotten tougher! As for the old cartridges, I love them. In you're scenerio for a moose hunt I would not hesitate to use one of my .45-70s or my .405 win.

In my case being limited to only a number of what I consider capablile center fire rifles for moose hunting... those being a Ruger M77 shooting a 150 grain 7mm mag Remington Core lock, or a 30-06 (and I used 220 grain ) which I did use once... Also I have a 7.7 model 99 Arisaka that shoots a Norma 165 grain boat tail that I am pretty sure would get the job done. But if the shooting was going to be close quarter I would use my White Ultra Mag .50 caliber muzzle loader shooting 110 grains of Triple Seven 2f powder and a 500 grain conical bullet. Get me with in 100 yards and you'd have a dead moose.

Correct me if im wrong but isnt the hunt supposed to be the challenge, not the shot?

Back in the days when game was plentiful, a .30-30 or a .270 was probably plenty for elk.

Now however if you need to make a long shot, you need to be equipped with a flat shooting rifle that will reach out there a longer ways.

The .338 and the .300 are very similar, and they reach out a long ways for over 500 yards with a walloping punch, ideal for elk and bears.

The guide was probably troubled because with a .30-30 you might be in for a long tracking job which is a waste of his time.

The .338 and the .300 drop anything in American in its tracks. You do not need a more powerful rifle unless you go to Africa to hunt.

The .270 and the .30-06 will drop anything close in, but you need to remember that the .30-06 was designed with WW1 combat (sniping) in mind, and the .30-30 for Indians and cougars in the wild west. They wont drop a big animal at a long distance in its tracks.

It's not that easy to sneak close to big game anymore, not like it used to be.

Moose are pretty stupid and blind, and a .45-70 is probably fine for them, sure. Different subject though. You started out talking about elk.

Elk are not the smartest animals either, I have never had any problem getting in close on elk. Archery hunters and muzzle loader hunters seem to be rather sucsessful at it. I live out west, here in Idaho, and I have never had to take a long shot on a elk, with rifle, bow or muzzle loader. A whitetail buck is by far a smarter animal than a elk. Matter of fact elk are so smart that they were almost wiped out before the advent of smokeless powder. Just saying.

I believe the original thread on this post was related to the manufacturers pushing the newer, bigger, more powerful chamberings. If we were to really think about it and be honest, except for the big bears here in NA or dangerous game in Africa and other places, you don't need a heavy magnum rifle. I believe the only exception to this would be sheep hunting (including mountain goat). I say this because the habitat they live in may require you to take a shot longer than you normally would and you want to try and drop them where they stand so your trophy doesn't fall off a cliff and get mangled or otherwise busted up. I know a .270, .280, 30-06 will easily take one of these animals. But here I think the 7mm Mag and up would be a better choice.
Having taken quitre a few big game animals both east and west of the Mississippi at ranges from "in your face" to "way out there" mostly all with a .270 Win I think I can speak from experience.

Well, by the fact the Pa. game wardens have to issue citations for mistaken kills, counting is more of a challenge for some.

Ok, you have me curious, what is a mistaken kill?

Thats where the rancher goes out and paints "steer" in big white letters across his steers for opening day of deer season.

But a hunter still shoots one, and paints "mistake" across the other side.