Too much gun?

[Alibiiv]

In safe country the old 270 is plenty of gun. In grizzly country i feel safer with 32 caliber and up guns, with the old 35 whelen being a favorite. Even the whelen needs premium bullets though.

I hunt black bear with the 35 Whelen and a .358 Winchester. I use 225 grain TSX in the Whelen and 200 grain TTSX bullets in the .358 Winchester. Every bear that I have shot with the Whelen has been bang/flop results. This past season I took a 234 pound black bear, the shot was at a quartering stance, went in just left of center chest about an inch diameter hole and exited the size of your fist, just catching the back of the left shoulder. I took a two-hundred pound with the .358 Winchester, broadside, just catching the back of the shoulders. About an inch going in and two-inches on the other side. This bear ran about forty feet and piled up. I like the 35 Whelen, I think that the .358 Winchester is one of the most accurate, forgotten, under estimated cartridges out there for hunting up to 300 yard ranges.

 

[yobuck]

I don't think this discussion would be taking place on this site five years ago. At least to the extent that it has.
This is, as the sign above the door says, a long range hunting site.
Killing an animal is one thing, hitting and killing an animal at a very long distance is yet another.
Those who do, never wish for less gun with less recoil, and in fact the opposite is more often the case.

 

[Alibiiv]

I think that I am old school, but not certain because I do like and can see a need for some of the new designer cartridges that have come out over the years; especially the long range 30 calibers. I can remember when the .308 Norma magnum first came out, at that time it was the only "hot" cartridge to have. Shortly after that I built a .358 Norma magnum, because it was a "magnum" and I had to have one. I do like the .270 Winchester for taking thin skinned animals at long distances, I like the 35 Whelen and the vintage .358 Winchester for the heavier, thick bodied game such as black bear, and although I have never harvested any bear with the 45-70 I like that cartridge for hunting them as well. And I can remember when the 7mm Remington magnum and the .264 Winchester magnum came out. I guess it would be easy to say that I was then living in an age of magnum mania, and now I have dated myself. I have a fondness for the 338-06, the 6.5-06 and the .270 Winchester, and most of the Ackley Improved cartridges. I'm presently building a .270AI., but it's built for long range shooting at thin skinned animals. Now for the OP question. Perhaps a different perspective/answer is that if I were out deer hunting with my 30-30 and the deer of a lifetime came out 300-400 yards away, would I have been over gunned if I had my .270, 7mmRemMag or .300 WinMag? If I were out deer hunting or elk hunting with my 6.5 Creed (gonna rile here!!!) and I ran across that nasty, mommy grizzly who was having a bad day, would I be over gunned if I were carrying my 300 PRC, 338 RemMag, or...458 WinMag? The point is that I consider the term "over gunned" to be subjectively judgemental; and, we all know that there's plenty of those individuals in our hunting/shooting world. Yup you might get the job done with something smaller, however one has/ought to use common sense when selecting a particular cartridge for hunting or shooting circumstances. Sure you "might" get the job done with a smaller/lesser cartridge, however ethical common sense should prevail. Although, "There's only one kind of common sense but a thousand varieties of stupidity."

 

[the hunter]

The .50 BMG is not to much gun for a deer, but I'ant going to shoot the .50 because it's not practical, it's going to be 20+ lbs. nock me off my feet and it is $10 per round.
That is why you do not see many people hunting with a .50 BMG.

 

[wilkup]

I don't think this discussion would be taking place on this site five years ago. At least to the extent that it has.
This is, as the sign above the door says, a long range hunting site.
Killing an animal is one thing, hitting and killing an animal at a very long distance is yet another.
Those who do, never wish for less gun with less recoil, and in fact the opposite is more often the case.

Just curious what you consider "long range". I'm not trying to start an argument, just playing a little devil's advocate here My personal definition is that it begins when I have to begin making corrections for drop and drift, which becomes a variable situation depending on elevation, which load I'm using and how fast the wind is blowing that day.

 

[Heavyiron]

Long range in the east is usually 400 yds or less. Terrain has a lot to do with this factor, unless you have a bean field or a power or gas line right of way. Long range to me is how far you can shoot and make hits accurately. 7mm rem mag and 300 winnie are popular in my neck of the woods. So are the old favorites 270, 243, 308, 30/06 and others.
Soo this site attracts a variety of shooters, from different backgrounds. Shooting at the local gun club at 800 yds is long range to me.

 

[tuscan]

Just curious what you consider "long range". I'm not trying to start an argument, just playing a little devil's advocate here My personal definition is that it begins when I have to begin making corrections for drop and drift, which becomes a variable situation depending on elevation, which load I'm using and how fast the wind is blowing that day.

Agree with your definition of long range, and would add anything exceeding max point blank range, which for my 7mm RMs is about 340-350. On a day it's gusting to say 35mph, long range is less!

To me, there is such a thing as too much gun, which is why I like a 6.5mm for pronghorn and deer, a 7mm RM for elk (and aoudad!), and a .223 for coyote. But I have not hunted in grizzly territory. If I got one more gun, it might be a 6.5PRC for ibex/sheep, but that's splitting hairs with the 7mmRM. Oh, and for an eventual moose hunt, maybe a 32 Nosler. But, to each his own choice. Glad we have choices.

 

[Hand Skills]

It's like cars... And trucks...

Too much gun is one I can't afford to FEED!

 

[Deleted member 103481]

Too much gun to me is when your load causes unnecessary meat damage during the kill on your quarry.

This baseline flexes on multi species hunts do to various energy needs per animal:

An example is let's say 28 Nosler on a whitetail doe at 23 yards May be too much gun if it results in unnecessary meat loss on what is in your opinion the ideal shot. For LRH this really becomes less and less a practical question. I think it's most often a useful consideration when pelt hunting. Too much gun is when it ruins pelts.

Something traveling slower at time of expansion very well may give you the same kill quality and more final product.

 

[Hand Skills]

Now you're talking about bullet selection @jmcmath

 

[Deleted member 103481]

Now you're talking about bullet selection JC

Yup. IMO too much gun is almost always incorrect ammo choice. The pelt point is where it deviates. It's hard to get .30 cal and up projectiles to not damage a pelt no matter the bullet choice

 

[Dean2]

Yup. IMO too much gun is almost always incorrect ammo choice. The pelt point is where it deviates. It's hard to get .30 cal and up projectiles to not damage a pelt no matter the bullet choice

Solids - no pelt damage.

 

[wilkup]

Solids - no pelt damage.

Unless a rib is encountered... even the little 204 Ruger will do some pretty nasty pelt damage when bones are encountered

 

[Playtimefun]

These last few comments strike so true and close to home that I just have to say how much I agree.

I have a 30-378 Weatherby in a Mark V Accumark. 5-20 power Vortex. I have shot 5 gallon pails at a mile with this rig (very admittedly not on the first, second, or third shot. I think I got one the fourth or fifth, but by the end we were getting hits more often lol). So I took it on a moose hunt here in southern Saskatchewan (because the moose are down in the fields like crazy since the water levels in the sloughs are up and they can now go drown the ticks) all thinking that I would be taking a 400-800 yard shot across a quarter section. I ended up shooting a big cow moose at 35 yards with the gun with minimal meat damage. One of the reasons I love Barnes bullets.

If you put a good quality bullet (various opinions as to which exact one) you generally... will not destroy any more meat no matter how big a magnum (again within reason) that you use. ASSUMING the shot placement is reasonable.

If you do a Texas heart shot on a deer with a 308 versus a 300 RUM, well yes, you are going to damage more meat because the 308 might stop a third or half way through but that RUM isn't likely going to stop. But if you are taking that type of shot, it's likely because that deer has horns you WANT!!! Your not taking that shot because your freezer is empty (well maybe last 5 minutes of the season and your freezer is empty).

Hence I have very little confidence in my 270 Win (and I know it has nothing to do with the caliber, I have 6 - 30-06s, 1 - 25-06, 2 - 280s and a 280AI) it was just the fact that I had shot 2 mule deer does with factory ammo that was supposed to be good for medium sized game and the bullets absolutely fragmented like crazy leaving blood trails throughout the body and picking fragments out of everywhere. Never had any problems on mule deer does with the 25-06, 280 or 30-06. It took me a while to take that gun out again, but I had learnt my lesson and on a mule deer depredation hunt I put down 2 does with no meat damage (which was good as all went to the local food bank).