Masculinity and Caliber Choice

[TaperPin]

Respectfully, I don't think anyone questioned your cartridge choices, just your justifications for why you need what you need. You seem to be shifting goalposts and pretending the conversation is about what you shoot, while it's really about shots you propose should be taken, which (you claim) work better when taken with larger, magnum cartridges. A short review:

"I don’t see a lot of talk about less than ideal angles - as if deer and elk stand sideways looking pretty just waiting to be shot. In my world, both are quick to hightail it out of the country, over a saddle or over a ridge. I think it’s a good noble sign that small caliber folks claim to happily let an animal go that’s a hard quartering or going away shot. Lightly constructed bullets just aren’t cutout for this. It doesn’t seem like a minor compromise to let an animal go that would be easy to anchor with a larger tougher bullet.

There’s nothing wrong with broadside shots with lightly constructed bullets from small calibers and I wouldn’t hesitate to take a shot with 77 gr TMK, I’ll continue to loan out a 243, and will probably take something with the new 6BR barrel. However, when I’m spending years to find a big animal, the more angles I can shoot it from the better, and a heavy/fast controlled expansion bullet has been a reliable killer since the preteen days reading Mad Magazine at the grocery store. For 95% of all shots I expect the bullet to barely expends any energy on the pass through, because on that difficult going away 5% shot it needs all the penetration and horsepower it can get."

Short translation: "I like magnum rifles because if it's a big, trophy animal, I'll shoot it right in the ass, if that's all I've got, rather than let if go. I find magnum cartridges work better for this."

"Maybe I just need different friends to hunt with, but nobody I know is interested in slow poke cartridges because of what their experiences have been. When the deer are running over the ridge I’d love to have a buddy smack one with a Creedmoor - there’s nothing special about what would happen, but I’m always open to watching this Creedmoor magic."

Short translation: "If deer are running away, we shoot them in the ass. That little Creedmoor ain't gonna work as good as my 300WM to shoot deer in the ass"

"I must not be the right person to explain how people around me behave. For does, meat bucks or cows we shoot them with whatever and avoid hard angled shots, but when it comes to what might be a once in a lifetime animal it makes sense to us to use something with deeper penetration for those hard angled shots. A Creedmoor, 25-06, 270, or even a 243 are all popular meat hunting guns - we see what they do every year, year after year, family after family. There isn’t any mystery to it - it’s not some hidden secret."

Short translation: "If it's a meat animal, yes, we show restraint and take high percentage shots, but if it’s a trophy bull, we take any shot we have and use magnum rifle because we find they work more reliably with low percentage shots"

I think this is what the conversation is about. Essentially you've been arguing that smaller cartridges are fine for shots typically taken by hunters, but magnums are better when it comes to ass shooting animals. That's fine, and I doubt anyone seriously doubts your premise, just your use of that as a consideration, especially for a new hunter, to factor into their rifle selection.

You did a good job of summarizing it. Meat animals are easy to find and easy enough to wait until an easy shot presents itself. When it’s an animal that has taken many years to find, then yes, I’d like as large a cartridge as I can shoot. To many of us, that’s common sense.

 

[fwafwow]

To many of us, that’s common sense.

One problem with common sense is that it’s a phrase that is often used to justify doing something the way it’s always been done, even if there is no (objective) evidence to support that custom or approach is ideal. If *anyone* thinks what they do can’t be improved upon, they are naive. And I’m including myself in having fallen victim to that. I think we all have, it’s just curious that your position on some of these topics seems immune.

 

[Thegman]

You did a good job of summarizing it. Meat animals are easy to find and easy enough to wait until an easy shot presents itself. When it’s an animal that has taken many years to find, then yes, I’d like as large a cartridge as I can shoot. To many of us, that’s common sense.

"When it’s an animal that has taken many years to find, then yes, I’d like as large a cartridge as I can shoot (because you're apparently willing to take any shot you have). To many of us, that’s common sense."

If one subscribes to taking whatever shot presents itself because you're not willing to let any trophy walk, then yes, it may well be common sense. But that's the point. A lot of people (if not most) aren't willing to take any shot they have and hope things work out. In those cases, your premise is not common sense. Giving that advice to a new hunter probably isn't common sense either.

And for the record, I personally have no "judgment" about your personal choice. However, it just doesn't apply to most hunters, in most situations, so it's really not the "cartridge choice consideration" you've presented it to be, especially for a new hunter asking for advice.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Personally, I don’t let the size of the animal, or lack thereof, influence my willingness to take a more difficult shot.

 

[atmat]

Even if you said you had killed 100 elk with a 300 RUM, then switched to a 223 and shot another 100 elk and they died even quicker, it would be interesting, but doesn’t change my judgement on cartridge choice.

From the git go I said people should shoot whatever they want - from everything I’ve seen, read, heard and experienced I’ve formed my opinions, which make you guys flip out. If what you shoot works, good for you, but what I shoot also works, and has worked reliably for quite a while. I don’t see my choice as needing to be fixed with something different, it’s not broken, and yet for some reason that seems illogical to you. Lol

All that is fine. I’m not trying to change your mind; and frankly, even if I was, you seem too stubborn to be open-minded.

But you said I hate large calibers. Since you believe you know me well enough to speak for me, please answer the question you skirted around in your last reply: what cartridge have most of my big game animals been taken with?

 

[wyosam]

My favorite part about people thinking you need a magnum - some of these same people have 3-9x40 without turrets, never shot past 300, and shoot soft point lead bullets. But their 300 fudderby wallet eater magnum has advantages over a modern rifle, with modern ballistics, and modern bullets and theres no way 6.5 creedmoor can kill anything.

Honestly we should just lump those guys in with the muzzleloader hunters season wise. Just call it primitive/unenlightened weapons season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich M]

"When it’s an animal that has taken many years to find, then yes, I’d like as large a cartridge as I can shoot (because you're apparently willing to take any shot you have). To many of us, that’s common sense."

If one subscribes to taking whatever shot presents itself because you're not willing to let any trophy walk, then yes, it may well be common sense. But that's the point. A lot of people (if not most) aren't willing to take any shot they have and hope things work out. In those cases, your premise is not common sense. Giving that advice to a new hunter probably isn't common sense either.

And for the record, I personally have no "judgment" about your personal choice. However, it just doesn't apply to most hunters, in most situations, so it's really not the "cartridge choice consideration" you've presented it to be, especially for a new hunter asking for advice.

I'm not a new hunter and would not let an elk walk off if I was hunting elk. Anchor it and then finish it off if need be. I let too many critters walk as a new hunter.

 

[ElPollo]

You did a good job of summarizing it. Meat animals are easy to find and easy enough to wait until an easy shot presents itself. When it’s an animal that has taken many years to find, then yes, I’d like as large a cartridge as I can shoot. To many of us, that’s common sense.

You are welcome to do what you choose. But I personally would not suggest to my kids or new hunters, in person or online, that it is ethical to justify taking a bad shot on an animal because it has big antlers. I would also not suggest that it is possible to overcome that bad shot opportunity with a bigger gun that they would likely shoot worse than a smaller gun.

 

[TaperPin]

One problem with common sense is that it’s a phrase that is often used to justify doing something the way it’s always been done, even if there is no (objective) evidence to support that custom or approach is ideal. If *anyone* thinks what they do can’t be improved upon, they are naive. And I’m including myself in having fallen victim to that. I think we all have, it’s just curious that your position on some of these topics seems immune.

My choices are carefully thought out and constantly change - I’ve upgraded and changed all my gear over the years. However when something works well there’s no reason to change it “just because” or to have the latest thing in all the magazines. Looking at the way back machine, in my 20’s this 7 mag killed everything it was pointed at to 500 yards, was easy to shoot, the 6x scope never needed adjustment and it shot tiny groups. Same for my friends’ 7 mags, and my wife’s 7 mag. The year after this picture was taken the rifle had the stock upgraded to a brown precision Kevlar pounder - what’s available now isn’t lighter.

I’ve worn out a dozen pairs of this same boot. The best Leki poles are lighter so these were upgraded. Packs are better so that has been upgraded. Gortex hasn’t changed, although that jacket wore out years ago. Nalgen bottles haven’t changed, although the lexan is an improvement. There’s a Whisperlight stove in there and I don’t think it’s been improved on. The old Leupold rangefinder was big and heavy - it’s been upgraded many times. I’ve upgraded the 30x Leupold spotting scope, but still think if it were still available is one of the best backpacking scopes. Fleece hasn’t changed. Polypro hasn’t changed.

Way back then buddies and I had worked through backpack hunting without internet or any books on it, and yet it hasn’t changed much in all these years from how we were doing it. Since then I’ve been upgrading gear for 30 years, so I’m not going to get excited if someone thinks we have to somehow prove what we’ve been doing.

It’s funny to older guys how much faith you put into everything new without understanding what’s been working just fine for a long time.

 

[TaperPin]

All that is fine. I’m not trying to change your mind; and frankly, even if I was, you seem too stubborn to be open-minded.

But you said I hate large calibers. Since you believe you know me well enough to speak for me, please answer the question you skirted around in your last reply: what cartridge have most of my big game animals been taken with?

I changed my hunting bullet and range finder this year, so I’m not too set in my ways.

Why don’t you just say whatever it is you want to say?

 

[TaperPin]

You are welcome to do what you choose. But I personally would not suggest to my kids or new hunters, in person or online, that it is ethical to justify taking a bad shot on an animal because it has big antlers. I would also not suggest that it is possible to overcome that bad shot opportunity with a bigger gun that they would likely shoot worse than a smaller gun.

If you can’t effectively take a shot you shouldn’t.

 

[Thegman]

Just messing with you!

 

[Thegman]

I'm not a new hunter and would not let an elk walk off if I was hunting elk. Anchor it and then finish it off if need be. I let too many critters walk as a new hunter.

Hopefully it's anchored and not lost. That's never a good feeling. How does that affect your cartridge choices? Just curious.

 

[atmat]

Why don’t you just say whatever it is you want to say?

My point is that I have shot and like bigger calibers. I don’t hate them at all. If you spend more time reading and less time bloviating, you may learn a thing or two.

 

[EastHumboldt]

Why ….you bunch of smart mouth young whippersnappers! I’ve got belt onions older than you… and I value their opinions more!!

 

[ElPollo]

Why ….you bunch of smart mouth young whippersnappers! I’ve got belt onions older than you… and I value their opinions more!!

Whippersnapper, hell. I’m as old as that catfish says he is.

 

[TaperPin]

My point is that I have shot and like bigger calibers. I don’t hate them at all. If you spend more time reading and less time bloviating, you may learn a thing or two.

You just don’t think I should like them? All I did is say something has worked well for me and you have spent the whole time telling me why I must be imagining things. Wasn’t much to read except disbelief any well regarded caliber out of the 1960s could be real. Lol

Last year I changed from a 7 mag and 338/340 to a 6.5 PRC and 300 PRC, but it’s only a tiny improvement, mostly on the big end.

 

[Thegman]

You just don’t think I should like them? All I did is say something has worked well for me and you have spent the whole time telling me why I must be imagining things. Wasn’t much to read except disbelief any well regarded caliber out of the 1960s could be real. Lol

Last year I changed from a 7 mag and 338/340 to a 6.5 PRC and 300 PRC, but it’s only a tiny improvement, mostly on the big end.

Well, you've got me thinking:

I don't think ass-shooting stuff is a particularly good plan, but because of that, I also have almost zero experience with it. For all I know, hitting stuff in the ass with a 300WM might kill like a lightning bolt. I don't know, and I'm being completely serious.

Could you relate specifics of the reaction, time to death, and other results of a bunch of first shots you've taken on deer and elk and whatever else when you placed the first shot in the ass? I'm not baiting you; I'm truly curious as to the specific cases and the results you could relate. I think it would be interesting.

 

[KenLee]

Well, you've got me thinking:

I don't think ass-shooting stuff is a particularly good plan, but because of that, I also have almost zero experience with it. For all I know, hitting stuff in the ass with a 300WM might kill like a lightning bolt. I don't know, and I'm being completely serious.

Could you relate specifics of the reaction, time to death, and other results of a bunch of first shots you've taken on deer and elk and whatever else when you placed the first shot in the ass? I'm not baiting you; I'm truly curious as to the specific cases and the results you could relate. I think it would be interesting.

I'm not TaperPin, but can attest to the effectiveness of straight away ass shots on good sized (for South Carolina, anyway) whitetails. Never had one go over 10 yards. The ones that made it that far were at least trotting, but most were running hard that moved at all. These shots were with 270 and 30-06 Hornady BTSP interlocks. Pass through guts and wreck the lungs. Had a couple where the 165 gr bullet stopped just under the black skin of the nose. I'd guess I've shot at least a dozen straight away over the last 40 years.

 

[TaperPin]

Well, you've got me thinking:

I don't think ass-shooting stuff is a particularly good plan, but because of that, I also have almost zero experience with it. For all I know, hitting stuff in the ass with a 300WM might kill like a lightning bolt. I don't know, and I'm being completely serious.

Could you relate specifics of the reaction, time to death, and other results of a bunch of first shots you've taken on deer and elk and whatever else when you placed the first shot in the ass? I'm not baiting you; I'm truly curious as to the specific cases and the results you could relate. I think it would be interesting.

It takes the rear legs out of commission instantly, and you have to assume a follow up shot will be required to finish it off, even with antelope or deer. I’ve skinned a deer where the bullet miss the spine completely and took out one loin. The hunter said it still instantly took out the hind legs, at least temporarily, and the deer was quickly finished off with a second shot.

The deer in the first picture is the hardest, because there’s not much around the aiming point if the bullet goes a little high. The zone for the second deer is much larger - there’s a lot of spine to the left or above the base of the tail. Smaller the target, the more accurate someone needs to be.