Is There Ever a Time to Hunt with Magnum Calibers?

[Ryan Avery]

Zero. It wouldn't make any sense. I don't want to "test" on animals.

Why are you trying so hard to get people to move away from something that works?

That's what I thought.

 

[Jake Larsen]

@Ryan Avery testing as in experimenting on animals?

How else do you test terminal performance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimh406]

That's what I thought.

Me, too. You didn't answer my question.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Again, testing as in experimenting on animals?

I see you changed your wording.

But yes how many match bullets have you tried on animals?

 

[westonadkins]

I moved to Alaska 20 years ago from Montana. I hike A LOT. Always carried a .44 629 classic.

One of my first exploratory hikes scouting, I ran into a real old timer lugging around a scarred shotgun (sawed off model 1200). Real nice guy and got talking guns, he asked to fondle my fancy stainless rig. I did, being from Montana and trusting.

The first thing that he said was to file off the front site. I stared vacantly for a little while. He got tired of me looking like a dolt and told me that it wouldn't hurt as much when the bear shoved it my @#&. Hence bigger tools of the trade.

This made me laugh out loud


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

Zero. It wouldn't make any sense. I don't want to "test" on animals.

Why are you trying so hard to get people to move away from something that works?

Because these bullets also work really well at the same ranges your partition does, and also at ranges where your partition doesn’t. They kill, and are ballistically superior. Better flight characteristics means better ability to put shots where they count downrange.

 

[roadrunner]

How else do you test terminal performance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't ask you Jake...

 

[Jake Larsen]

Didn't ask you Jake...

You’re on a public forum bud. Anyone can answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimh406]

Because these bullets also work really well at the same ranges your partition does, and also at ranges where your partition doesn’t.

Oh, so change to have bullets for ranges I don't shoot. Yeah, that makes sense. LOL

Seriously, just wondering why it's important for everyone to join your "club". I'm not trying to get you to join mine.

 

[roadrunner]

I see you changed your wording.

But yes how many match bullets have you tried on animals?

Better check again, wording is the same.

What happens when your results are less than stellar because the experiment goes bad?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Me, too. You didn't answer my question.

Simple I've tried both, “hunting” and Match bullets so I don't need an explanation like you asked @huntnful for.

 

[roadrunner]

You’re on a public forum bud. Anyone can answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Open question yes. Direct question to someone else, well, there's a reason why when manners are taught to kiddos they're told to speak when spoken to...

 

[jimh406]

Simple I've tried both, “hunting” and Match bullets so I don't need an explanation like you asked @huntnful for.

You still didn't answer my question. "Why are you trying so hard to get people to move away from something that works?"

Note: I don't need an answer.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

You still didn't answer my question. "Why are you trying so hard to get people to move away from something that works?"

Note: I don't need an answer.

An incorrect blanket statement was made and commented on by folks with experience and dead animals that prove otherwise. No need to get your panties in a wad over it Jim.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Oh, so change to have bullets for ranges I don't shoot. Yeah, that makes sense. LOL

Seriously, just wondering why it's important for everyone to join your "club". I'm not trying to get you to join mine.

I see you conveniently left off the second part of my response, which answers your question.

If match bullets are ballistically superior, and kill effectively at given hunting ranges, they’re objectively a better choice. If your “hunting” bullets work for you at your hunting ranges, great. However, it’s plain wrong to say they’re better, and misleading to new/other hunters who are learning about terminal ballistics. Nobody is trying to make you shoot them. Nobody cares what you shoot. But some of us are trying to get good information out there for others who are trying to learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Reburn]

Open question yes. Direct question to someone else, well, there's a reason why when manners are taught to kiddos they're told to speak when spoken to...

Funny you speaking to manners as you almost always come across as belligerent.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Better check again, wording is the same.

What happens when your results are less than stellar because the experiment goes bad?

I actually have posted about many less than stellar experiments with SMKs, 195 Bergers. TTXS and Accubombs. I don't shy away from the truth like many on here. Nor am I trying to change anyone's mind but if you say something doesn't work and you have never tried it that's dumb.

 

[jimh406]

If match bullets are ballistically superior, and kill effectively at given hunting ranges, they’re objectively a better choice. If your “hunting” bullets work for you at your hunting ranges, great.

You can't prove better. Animals are dead either way. There are variables on every shot.

To be clear, I have no issue with you or anyone else stating your opinion and posting whatever you want. I just find it strange that you and others are trying to convert everyone to your way of thinking.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter as long as animals are killed cleanly.

 

[Jake Larsen]

You can't prove better. Animals are dead either way. There are variables on every shot.

To be clear, I have no issue with you or anyone else stating your opinion and posting whatever you want. I just find it strange that you and others are trying to convert everyone to your way of thinking.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter as long as animals are killed cleanly.

Ballistics are not subjective. Match bullets have better ballistics

Terminal performance isn’t subjective either. Time of impact to time of death.

What YOU prefer a wound channel to look like is objective.

For what it’s worth, I use bonded bullets sometimes. But it’s a preference. It’s not better. And I’m actually trading some terminal performance and significant ballistic performance for a certain wound channel preference when I choose to use them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimh406]

Ballistics are not objective. Match bullets have better ballistics

But, some match bullets are better than others. Always going for the better ballistics implies that everyone should always use the most ballistic superior solution and that includes velocity, caliber, etc.

I guess that would be ok if we all used exactly the same setup ... but probably is not going to happen.