Masculinity and Caliber Choice

[Macintosh]

But @Decker9 my identity and life ethos is all rolled up in my cartridge choices, so if a .xxxPRC/CM/AI/etc isnt objectively the best, then who am I really and what is all this really for?

 

[yeti12]

But @Decker9 my identity and life ethos is all rolled up in my cartridge choices, so if a .xxxPRC/CM/AI/etc isnt objectively the best, then who am I really and what is all this really for?

I think its more that people take game in large amounts with 223 6mm 6.5mm 25 cal etc and then people get online and try to tell others they need 30 cal to be effective on game. Small calibers won't work. So then the small caliber shooters say yeah they work fine I do it every year and then the debate follows.

It's always the same. One side speaks from personal experience and one side heard a story of someone's sister mommy 3 towns over that shot a elk in the shoulder with a 6.5 prc and the elk twitched and walked away not even bleeding and the bullet vaporized on impact so that means you can't use a 6.5 with match bullets for hunting.

 

[Rich M]

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

30-06, 150 NP at 2900 fps or 165 NP at about 2750 fps - MPBR of 350 yards. Western hunting is something I'd like to do once more and then done there. So why buy another gun?

I been using a 350 Legend or 357 Mag rifle for WT hunting. Legend is good to 250 yards, 357 Mag is excellent inside of 100 yards and they usually DRT with a rib shot and XTP bullet.

 

[Macintosh]

Yah, @yeti12 I get that. Sorry if that wasnt dripping with enough sarcasm. Point was that people make all sorts of decisions based on a combination of objective, anecdotal and emotional reasons, and to a degree, for someone who has a lot invested in it, to have your balance of objective and emotional contradicted is too often taken personally..after all, my experiences and whatever portion of my decisions that are based on those are mine and they happened, and are irrefutable…regardless of whether they are universal or consistently repeatable. I could edit my post to: humans are hard-wired to make decisions based at least partially on emotion and non-objective criteria, and many (most?) people have a blurred line between what portion of their thought process is objective and what portion is subjective, and even whennit is objective we are hard-wired to extrapolate from a small number of experiences. Its called heuristics, and it is a thing that can be predicted. The result is that anything like this will never be “settled” universally, will always result in tribalism, and it isnt possible to arrive at a universal “correct” answer…so it **MIGHT** be pointless to try.

Edit: this cuts both ways btw.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I think this is the only place Iv seen the whole big vs small debate. Anywhere else (Canadian here), seems people just run what they got and nobody bats an eye over it.

I'm not 100% sure but the masculinity/cartridge thing seems like a uniquely US gun culture phenomenon.

 

[yeti12]

Yah, @yeti12 I get that. Sorry if that wasnt dripping with enough sarcasm. Point was that people make all sorts of decisions based on a combination of objective, anecdotal and emotional reasons, and to a degree, for someone who has a lot invested in it, to have your balance of objective and emotional contradicted is too often taken personally..after all, my experiences and whatever portion of my decisions that are based on those are mine and they happened, and are irrefutable…regardless of whether they are universal or consistently repeatable. I could edit my post to: humans are hard-wired to make decisions based at least partially on emotion and non-objective criteria, and many (most?) people have a blurred line between what portion of their thought process is objective and what portion is subjective, and even whennit is objective we are hard-wired to extrapolate from a small number of experiences. Its called heuristics, and it is a thing that can be predicted. The result is that anything like this will never be “settled” universally, will always result in tribalism, and it isnt possible to arrive at a universal “correct” answer…so it **MIGHT** be pointless to try.

I picked up on the sarcasm...

 

[Decker9]

But @Decker9 my identity and life ethos is all rolled up in my cartridge choices, so if a .xxxPRC/CM/AI/etc isnt objectively the best, then who am I really and what is all this really for?

Aim right, shoot straight, the rest is history right?

 

[Macintosh]

Or at least look both ways before bringing quiche to deer camp.

 

[Pharmseller]

Or at least look both ways before bringing quiche to deer camp.

 

[Thegman]

30-06, 150 NP at 2900 fps or 165 NP at about 2750 fps - MPBR of 350 yards. Western hunting is something I'd like to do once more and then done there. So why buy another gun?

I been using a 350 Legend or 357 Mag rifle for WT hunting. Legend is good to 250 yards, 357 Mag is excellent inside of 100 yards and they usually DRT with a rib shot and XTP bullet.

I've come to appreciate the Partition much more. I don't shoot them, but they were and continue to be a great performing bullet, it seems. And yes, no "need" for another rifle with a 30-06, IMO.

(To add: fwiw, as I mentioned earlier, the only time I've seen a big ungulate ass shot, it wasn’t anchored by any stretch of the imagination and by the time it was found, it was largely wasted. Not that I'm an expert in this, but that moose was shot I believe with a TBBC (from a 35 Whelen). I just wouldn't count on an ass shot reliably "anchoring" big animals.)

 

[Thegman]

I'm not 100% sure but the masculinity/cartridge thing seems like a uniquely US gun culture phenomenon.

Yeah, maybe. Embrace it! That culture has led to some badass stuff...



Canadians didn't make these...they were too busy killing moose with their 303 British Enfields

 

[Rich M]

I've come to appreciate the Partition much more. I don't shoot them, but they were and continue to be a great performing bullet, it seems. And yes, no "need" for another rifle with a 30-06, IMO.

(To add: fwiw, as I mentioned earlier, the only time I've seen a big ungulate ass shot, it wasn’t anchored by any stretch of the imagination and by the time it was found, it was largely wasted. Not that I'm an expert in this, but that moose was shot I believe with a TBBC (from a 35 Whelen). I just wouldn't count on an ass shot reliably "anchoring" big animals.)

Grew up with the partition. Find it to expand rapidly and dump a bunch of energy but that rear end carries it thru. My dad got about full penetration on a WT from stem to stern at 125 yards with 243 and 100 gr NP at 2850ish fps.

If I was inside 100 yards and looking at a big butt, animal facing away - aim to hit top of the base of the tail. Not trying to do a colonoscopy, but instead to break the pelvis and spine to immobilize. Not a fan of the Texas heart shot at all - no blood. If the Texas heart shot was all I had, would pass 100% of the time.

 

[Hunter270Win]

I think its more that people take game in large amounts with 223 6mm 6.5mm 25 cal etc and then people get online and try to tell others they need 30 cal to be effective on game. Small calibers won't work. So then the small caliber shooters say yeah they work fine I do it every year and then the debate follows.

It's always the same. One side speaks from personal experience and one side heard a story of someone's sister mommy 3 towns over that shot a elk in the shoulder with a 6.5 prc and the elk twitched and walked away not even bleeding and the bullet vaporized on impact so that means you can't use a 6.5 with match bullets for hunting.

lol I think you summed it up quite well. You know what’s funny is that originally people thought that the .30 cal was way too small for game. When the 30-30 was introduced, many Americans thought it wasn’t sufficient for game. Now, ofc, we know better. But it’s the same folks claiming you need a .30 cal bare minimum to take large game and that nothing else will make as big of a hole.

 

[Hunter270Win]

I'm not 100% sure but the masculinity/cartridge thing seems like a uniquely US gun culture phenomenon.

It is a uniquely US phenomenon and not in a good way. If you put “magnum” as the suffix on any standard cartridge then it immediately becomes big game suitable for a lot of wannabe macho men.

It’s the same reason that men buy “dude wipes” and not wet wipes. It’s this weird focus on masculinity that probably has some impact to the whole gender movement bs we have right now.

 

[bnewt3]

pick something with a proven track record of success (defined as confirmed ethical kills) and that fits your specific needs and get good with it. Leave all the other mess behind.

That being said, I can certainly see a case for going as "big" or "powerful" as possible that you can shoot well, because of 2 facts:
1) our responsibility as hunters *should* be to make the time between the trigger squeeze and the lights going out on the animal as short as possible.
2) the best plans regularly go to hell in the real world

the takeaway being that "big" or "powerful" gives you more room for error and still kill. It's not my personal approach but it's logical and I'm not going to say it's wrong.

I personally think the best way to give yourself the most room for error is to be extremely proficient with your firearm.

 

[yeti12]

It is a uniquely US phenomenon and not in a good way. If you put “magnum” as the suffix on any standard cartridge then it immediately becomes big game suitable for a lot of wannabe macho men.

It’s the same reason that men buy “dude wipes” and not wet wipes. It’s this weird focus on masculinity that probably has some impact to the whole gender movement bs we have right now.

Don't forget Harleys, big trucks and beer. Drink any mixed drink at any time and you are automatically less manly. Drive a car to work to save money for hunting? Less manly. Ride a Japanese or Austrian motorcycle? Less manly.

The list goes on. It's so dumb.

 

[Decker9]

Yeah, maybe. Embrace it! That culture has led to some badass stuff...

View attachment 703513

Canadians didn't make these...they were too busy killing moose with their 303 British Enfields

Nice car! Almost as clsssy as those Enfield’s

 

[wyosam]

Don't forget Harleys, big trucks and beer. Drink any mixed drink at any time and you are automatically less manly. Drive a car to work to save money for hunting? Less manly. Ride a Japanese or Austrian motorcycle? Less manly.

The list goes on. It's so dumb.

Not only did I used to drive a Prius to work, on two different occasions I put elk quarters in the back of it. A couple of my favorite elk spots were a hike straight in off the highway, not a trailhead or anything, barely a wide spot- pretty much just pull off the highway and go. I always used the car for spots like that because I didn’t want to it to look like I was hunting. Smart financial decisions aren’t very manly it seems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Thegman]

Nice car! Almost as clsssy as those Enfield’s

View attachment 703628

Definitely one of the great rifles!

 

[eric1115]

pick something with a proven track record of success (defined as confirmed ethical kills) and that fits your specific needs and get good with it. Leave all the other mess behind.

That being said, I can certainly see a case for going as "big" or "powerful" as possible that you can shoot well, because of 2 facts:
1) our responsibility as hunters *should* be to make the time between the trigger squeeze and the lights going out on the animal as short as possible.
2) the best plans regularly go to hell in the real world

the takeaway being that "big" or "powerful" gives you more room for error and still kill. It's not my personal approach but it's logical and I'm not going to say it's wrong.

I personally think the best way to give yourself the most room for error is to be extremely proficient with your firearm.

What if the takeaway is that the smallest cartridge that delivers a good bullet to your max intended range above velocity needed for upset gives you the best chance to spot your impact, recover quickly, and put another round or two or three on target when the best plan goes to hell in the real world?

A second bullet beats the heck out of a marginally wider or deeper wound channels in my experience. Conventional wisdom may be that a larger cartridge gives more "room for error," but I think at this point I'd say pretty confidently that fast and accurate follow up shots are far better than bigger bullets when things don't go to plan.