Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?

[mt100gr.]

If you read threads from Africa and Australia, most prefer larger bullets over super fast velocity. The usual saying is put it in the right spot, but how sure are you of doing that, especially at longer distances, critter could move just enough after the trigger is pulled the projectile is now in a bad spot. Some of it is margin of error, it is hard to be perfect with all the variables of hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've asked this is previous threads: how does one quantify this "margin of error"? Asked another way: how badly can you miss and still get sufficient results? Is it relative to the bullet diameter (caliber)? Or the bullet weight? Or the charge weight of the cartridge? Or do guys just know that this big gun will bail them out if they f#*k up? I see this justification for magnums tossed around a lot but no one has been able to say how this margin of error is put into practice with confidence.

Please be the first to answer this question.

 

[hereinaz]

If you can’t shoot a light magnum, even up to a 7 mag, then you aren’t practicing enough, IMO to be shooting to the distances where it matters.

 

[roadrunner]

When, or is there ever, a time when a magnum caliber cartridge is advantageous for hunting?

Yes, there is.

 

[JPW13]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everyone! I want to clarify my original question and add some context from my experience.

First off, I’m not here to argue against magnums—I own and shoot several, and I enjoy hunting with them. In 2023, I took a mule deer at 600m with my .300 WSM, and before trying out the .224s, I dropped a bear at 700m with my 7 PRC. I also regularly take spring bears with my .45-70, which is a completely different kind of experience but one I genuinely enjoy. I shoot a lot of rounds each year, and I’m comfortable with heavy recoil. I’ll hunt with what makes me happy, but success in the field makes me happiest of all—and that’s where I’m trying to understand if there’s still a practical case for magnums.

A few take-aways from all the replies:

1. "If it were better, it would be obvious":I agree—if something is clearly better, it usually doesn’t take long to notice in the field. But by my own experience the 88s have killed just as dead with as quick a time to incapacitation as the 175s or 212s. Are there cases where a bigger bullet somehow aids in lower expansion velocities for longer range success in a way a small caliber can’t replicate?
2. "Shoot what you can handle":Absolutely valid. A magnum is only advantageous if the shooter can handle it accurately. Heavy recoil and infrequent practice lead to missed shots and wounded animals. That said, I might not shoot as tight a groups with a magnum, but I do tend to still ring still with the same frequency as a smaller calibre and sight picture is maintained because I don't use high magnification.
3. "Magnums are never wrong; they’re just more of a good thing":I hear this argument, but if the difference in wind resistance or terminal performance between a magnum and a fast .224 is minimal, is "more of a good thing" just a theoretical benefit? Or does it manifest in real-world hunting conditions where that slight edge has made the difference?
4. "Shoot what you want, there’s no right or wrong":I get the sentiment, but I’m trying to explore whether magnums still hold a practical, hunting-specific advantage. Does anyone feel they’ve seen an outcome where a magnum clearly succeeded where a smaller caliber might have failed?

@Formidilosus has talked about shooting magnums - but I think it was just for fun or work, I don't remember a hunting example where it benefited?"

To sum up, I’m trying to move past “personal preference” and dig into whether there’s a functional reason for magnums in modern hunting. So far, the advantages seem minimal or situational, but I’m open to (and sort of hope to be) convinced otherwise. Looking forward to more insights!

 

[pacoalcracker]

rayfrugg...plenty of gut shot animals by the long rangers with light cartridges..trust me on that. They just never mention it. Perhaps never even realize it. The PA Long Rangers of north central Pa have been around way long before these newbie kids were a glimmer in their dad's eyes....shooting deer and bear at 1000+ yards. They had plenty of gut shot animals. You think these kids are any better? Highly unlikely. However, as much as I won't do it, I also believe they have every right to. I'm hopeful they are responsible in their action.

I'm not totally on board with margin of error...a gut shot with a 223 is not worse than if using a magnum. Neither is good and causes suffering and possibly a lost animal. Time of flight, imperfect set-up and animal movement takes a lot to overcome.

 

[Balderdash]

reclouse79...does my 2024 F450 4x4 diesel crew cab 8' box dually count? LOL.

Only if you don't actually tow anything that necessitates such a truck with it..

 

[JPW13]

Yes, there is.

When?

 

[Gila]

I've asked this is previous threads: how does one quantify this "margin of error"? Asked another way: how badly can you miss and still get sufficient results? Is it relative to the bullet diameter (caliber)? Or the bullet weight? Or the charge weight of the cartridge? Or do guys just know that this big gun will bail them out if they f#*k up? I see this justification for magnums tossed around a lot but no one has been able to say how this margin of error is put into practice with confidence.

Please be the first to answer this question.

In all honesty it depends on what you consider to be a magnum. Modern case design and bullet design sort of makes a long action cartridge obsolete. The WSMs, SAUMs, PRCs and derivatives of the three are the “new” magnums.

 

[Hangtown]

In my experience, very often the animal I shoot with my 300 wsm,(mule deer and blacktail mostly) fall in their tracks, no tracking necessary. I can’t say the same for those smaller calibers. Again, just my experience.

 

[JPW13]

In my experience, very often the animal I shoot with my 300 wsm,(mule deer and blacktail mostly) fall in their tracks, no tracking necessary. I can’t say the same for those smaller calibers. Again, just my experience.

Same experience with my WSM- although two of the critters I shot with the 22CM were DRT. One at 70m one at 500m. Another at 100M ran less than 100m before piling up.

 

[pacoalcracker]

JPW, I am a season hunter but to be honest if I were hunting game that can kill you pretty quickly, I would be hesitant to use anything but a heavier magnum. 7mm Mag at the least with 175's. Moreso if I wasn't backed up by a competent person with a heavy magnum. There may be some risk adverse hunters out there, but I like life... a lot. I want everything in my favor. That is my case for using a magnum.

I still want someone to explain why energy does not pertain to tissue/organ "damage" but velocity does. Energy is define as "work being done" as in the bullet destroying the tissue as that is the "work being done". Velocity isn't doing the "work", the energy is. Velocity may be facilitating the work being done, but it isn't doing the work.

My admin lines up and plans my work...but I physically do the work. She is the velocity facilitating the work, but i'm the energy doing the work. She cannot get the job done without me being the energy to do the work...aka destruction of tissue. Velocity isn't the worker, the energy is. Makes total sense to me.

 

[mt100gr.]

In all honesty it depends on what you consider to be a magnum. Modern case design and bullet design sort of makes a long action cartridge obsolete. The WSMs, SAUMs, PRCs and derivatives of the three are the “new” magnums.

Agreed. Another thing i have seen/heard/done a lot lately with suppressor use so common, is putting together a short barreled "magnum" to achieve performance similar to a standard/traditional length non-magnum. So your "what makes a magnum" question is a good one!

Rhetorical question: Does a 150ish grain bullet from a 270 WSM out-perform a 156 gr bullet from a 6.5 Creed? Or a 150 gr .308win, or 150gr .284....?? The actual caliber difference is negligible....

 

[InkedElkSlayer]

Why Magnums?

Fastest Gun In The West East South And North GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY

GIPHY animates your world. Find Fastest Gun In The West East South And North GIFs that make your conversations more positive, more expressive, and more you.

giphy.com

https://media4.giphy.com/media/l0IpYBWTQHcZMv2cE/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952kueq1d9pb89p33e0d1pf017jkotkqur752xkgsry&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

 

[Koda_]

I've asked this is previous threads: how does one quantify this "margin of error"? Asked another way: how badly can you miss and still get sufficient results? Is it relative to the bullet diameter (caliber)? Or the bullet weight? Or the charge weight of the cartridge? Or do guys just know that this big gun will bail them out if they f#*k up? I see this justification for magnums tossed around a lot but no one has been able to say how this margin of error is put into practice with confidence.

Please be the first to answer this question.

You wont get an answer because there isnt one, any attempt at quantifying a margin of error just proves the persons poor marksmanship and no ones going to admit thats why they choose a magnum. A magnum isnt going to save the day for not hitting a vital area so your answer is there isnt one.

 

[JPW13]

JPW, I am a season hunter but to be honest if I were hunting game that can kill you pretty quickly, I would be hesitant to use anything but a heavier magnum. 7mm Mag at the least with 175's. Moreso if I wasn't backed up by a competent person with a heavy magnum. There may be some risk adverse hunters out there, but I like life... a lot. I want everything in my favor. That is my case for using a magnum.

I still want someone to explain why energy does not pertain to tissue/organ "damage" but velocity does. Energy is define as "work being done" as in the bullet destroying the tissue as that is the "work being done". Velocity isn't doing the "work", the energy is. Velocity may be facilitating the work being done, but it isn't doing the work.

My admin lines up and plans my work...but I physically do the work. She is the velocity facilitating the work, but i'm the energy doing the work. She cannot get the job done without me being the energy to do the work...aka destruction of tissue. Velocity isn't the worker, the energy is. Makes total sense to me.

Great points, and I appreciate your perspective on wanting everything in your favour when hunting dangerous game—totally valid, especially if life’s on the line. I’ve had some experiences that align with your thoughts but also challenge them in specific situations, particularly with the concept of "knock-down" versus energy and velocity.

I’ve taken several bears under 100m with a .45-70, and the results have been dramatic. For example:

My largest black bear (6'5") was taken at 125m with a hard-cast bullet to the chest. It penetrated all the way to the rear ham with minimal expansion, and the bear was literally knocked on his butt!

Another bear, just over 6 feet, was taken at 50m with a middle-of-middle shot. It was knocked over onto its side on impact—again, a .45-70 doing what it does best up close.

On the other hand, a third bear I shot with a 168 TTSX from a .308 (2750 fps muzzle velocity) at under 100m didn’t leave the same impression. I found only a couple of small drops of blood and never recovered it. It acted like a broadhead is my guess. That experience made me question how energy and velocity are related. The TTSX would have had about 2300ft/lbs according to my ballistic software, whereas the big slow .458 would have been around 1400ft/lbs. I did a lot of reading on the subject, mostly guys using the good ol' government in africa and their take away is a big flat meplat penetrates straight and true and works. I now wonder if that flat meplat displaces tissue and despite the "slow velocity" and "minimal energy" it's creating a significant temporary and permanent wound channel as a result of how much tissue is "displaced". Would a big spire point 30 cal do the same at low velocity? Is that a use case for shooting a heavy for caliber 30 cal?


As for energy vs. velocity, I see your analogy, but the way I interpret it is that velocity determines how effectively the energy is delivered. A fast-moving bullet (velocity) facilitates focused energy transfer by ensuring proper penetration and/or expansion at the right depths. If a bullet is too slow, it might over-penetrate without transferring enough energy to vital tissues. Conversely, a high-velocity bullet with insufficient weight or improper construction might fragment too early, failing to cause critical damage.

To your case for using a magnum: I absolutely agree they have their place, particularly with dangerous game. The ability to deliver heavy bullets at high velocity creates a margin for error that can be critical in high-stakes situations (... so are follow-up shots?). But from my experience, bullet construction and placement often trump energy on paper. Is that why I’ve seen a .45-70 physically “knock over” bears at close range, even though its ballistic energy is significantly less impressive than some magnums.

 

[Koda_]

To sum up, I’m trying to move past “personal preference” and dig into whether there’s a functional reason for magnums in modern hunting. So far, the advantages seem minimal or situational, but I’m open to (and sort of hope to be) convinced otherwise. Looking forward to more insights!

Reasons I can think of is:

• if the magnum cartridge gives more penetration for dangerous game
• more terminal velocity and thus wind resistance for long range hunting

The problem is "magnum" doesn't have a true definition and those two reasons above are being overcome with better powder, case and bullet technology. Magnum calibers are just an old school way of overcoming perceived shortcomings in older traditional cartridges, thats the only reason they were invented. If there was a poor shot, or an older bullet fragmented or came apart or any reason a large trophy was unrecovered or hours spent recovering were usually blamed on the rifle not the shooter. Here in the US, if something doesn't work make it bigger. So we invented magnums.

 

[Dixie]

Bigger bullets at slower velocities = less bloodshot and more edible meat. You can keep your meatwasting pop guns thankyou.

Where you at North Forty the other day going on about the 45-70 being the best cartridge for everything "you can literally eat the meat around the bullet hole"
Had to walk away I was laughing so hard.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everyone! I want to clarify my original question and add some context from my experience.

First off, I’m not here to argue against magnums—I own and shoot several, and I enjoy hunting with them. In 2023, I took a mule deer at 600m with my .300 WSM, and before trying out the .224s, I dropped a bear at 700m with my 7 PRC. I also regularly take spring bears with my .45-70, which is a completely different kind of experience but one I genuinely enjoy. I shoot a lot of rounds each year, and I’m comfortable with heavy recoil. I’ll hunt with what makes me happy, but success in the field makes me happiest of all—and that’s where I’m trying to understand if there’s still a practical case for magnums.

A few take-aways from all the replies:

1. "If it were better, it would be obvious":I agree—if something is clearly better, it usually doesn’t take long to notice in the field. But by my own experience the 88s have killed just as dead with as quick a time to incapacitation as the 175s or 212s. Are there cases where a bigger bullet somehow aids in lower expansion velocities for longer range success in a way a small caliber can’t replicate?
2. "Shoot what you can handle":Absolutely valid. A magnum is only advantageous if the shooter can handle it accurately. Heavy recoil and infrequent practice lead to missed shots and wounded animals. That said, I might not shoot as tight a groups with a magnum, but I do tend to still ring still with the same frequency as a smaller calibre and sight picture is maintained because I don't use high magnification.
3. "Magnums are never wrong; they’re just more of a good thing":I hear this argument, but if the difference in wind resistance or terminal performance between a magnum and a fast .224 is minimal, is "more of a good thing" just a theoretical benefit? Or does it manifest in real-world hunting conditions where that slight edge has made the difference?
4. "Shoot what you want, there’s no right or wrong":I get the sentiment, but I’m trying to explore whether magnums still hold a practical, hunting-specific advantage. Does anyone feel they’ve seen an outcome where a magnum clearly succeeded where a smaller caliber might have failed?

@Formidilosus has talked about shooting magnums - but I think it was just for fun or work, I don't remember a hunting example where it benefited?"

To sum up, I’m trying to move past “personal preference” and dig into whether there’s a functional reason for magnums in modern hunting. So far, the advantages seem minimal or situational, but I’m open to (and sort of hope to be) convinced otherwise. Looking forward to more insights!

A .54 BC isn’t amazing. There are significant advantages to shooting say a 195 berger out of a 7prc at .75 BC at longer ranges.

 

[JPW13]

A .54 BC isn’t amazing. There are significant advantages to shooting say a 195 berger out of a 7prc at .75 BC at longer ranges.

Fair point - but you’re not pushing a 195 at the same speed as a 175 and when I run the velocity adjusted numbers the windage correction at 1000 is negligible. For shooting ELR steel sure, but for hunting?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Fair point - but you’re not pushing a 195 at the same speed as a 175 and when I run the velocity adjusted numbers the windage correction at 1000 is negligible. For shooting ELR steel sure, but for hunting?

Then shoot it out of a 7 rum. My point is that is can be a material difference when taking a long range shot on game and there is wind.