Varmint rifle for deer hunting
J Marcotte
I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
Currently, I look at these two rifles:
- Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
- Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
My wife hesitate between:
- Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
- Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
- Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
Thanks,
Jonathan
------------------
Jonathan Marcotte
Montreal, (Quebec)
Canada
___/)__/)________/)_____________________________________________
Jonathan Marcotte
marc...@grics.qc.ca
Societe GRICS
DSA - Taxation scolaire
Montreal (QUEBEC)
(514) 251-3700 Poste 3924
PGP Id: 17DEBA35
PGP Fingerprint: 00DC 62F2 C1D9 C4AD 22A6 7C9B 9104 994F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
The Clan McGirr
the bench, or in the field on the bipod, I find I can rack the bolt quite
easily right handed. Just a thought!
J Marcotte wrote:
--
Jonathan McGirr,
Computer Mercenary
http://www.flash.net/~mcgirr
"When in doubt, the claymore faces you."
-- Murphy's laws of combat
Thomas M. Reynolds
.308 is plenty good for shooting deer and black bear sized game. For
Moose, it is probably too small. Second, a 26 inch barrel does not
necessarily make a gun more accurate, and the issue of "clover leaf"
accuracy in a hunting weapon is really overstated i.e., shooting him in
the eye or between the eyes is the same thing in hunting even if not at
the range. Having said that, the varmint gun you are considering may be
better for your wife for the same reason it is it is worse, it is
heavier than the others. This will have a very big effect on reducing
felt recoil and many women are bothered by it so it could be a big
factor. I would say the weight is more of a factor in some hunting
methods than others. In "still" hunting, weight is less important than
if moving about following hounds for example. If you are convinced you
need the 30-06 for yourself personally, I suggest a simple test to help
decide on your wife's weapon. Buy your rifle in 30-06 and take her out
and let her use it and see if she is bothered by recoil. If not, go for
an accurate .308 in a lighter weapon, say one weighing about the same
as your 30-06 or even a little less. Recoil is overestimated in hunting
weapons as on a good hunt you will fire it once or twice. But for
target shooting recoil can be an issue. Because of the number of times
you shoot it, I imagine a woman could walk away with a brused shoulder.
I also wouldn't limit myself to Ruger, they are not the only well made
gun> Savage makes a very accurate weapon which is relatively inexpensive
remingtons can be very good for more money and Brownings with BOSS can
be unbelievably accurate and that same system softens recoil because the
device is also a muzzel brake (it comes with a choice of two devices
included, one includes a muzzel break, and the other designated CR
doesn't and is preferred by people who would rather feel the recoil than
go deaf from the increased noise of the break). (It may even be she
could shoot a .300 winmag in a Browning with BOSS.) I have been told
BOSS is not allowed in competitive shooting however. Good luck in the
Laurentians!
Thomas Fournier
>
> J Marcotte wrote:
> >
> > We (my wife and me) look to buy our first rifles.
> >
> > I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
> >
> > Currently, I look at these two rifles:
> >
> > - Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
> > - Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
> >
> > My wife hesitate between:
> >
> > - Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> > - Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> > - Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
> >
> > I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
> > we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
> >
> > The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
> > and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan
> Jonathan, a couple of your assumptions can be questioned. First, the
> .308 is plenty good for shooting deer and black bear sized game. For
> Moose, it is probably too small.
Only if the experience of most moose hunters counts for nothing. I am a
338 fan, and I think that it is an ideal moose round; my motto is that
more than enough is barely sufficient. However, the overwhelming
majority of Ontario moose are cleanly killed with 30-30's, 303 British,
or 308 Win. With the 308, you would certainly want to use 180 grain
bullets for moose, and you would be ill advised to try shots over 300
yards. As long as you can be happy with those two relatively trivial
provisos, the 308 will serve you well for moose.
The recoil of 308 and 30-06 are very similar. Unless you compare rifles
of identical weights with identical stocks, it is very difficult to the
one from the other. IOW, a light weight 308 will recoil more than a
medium weight 30-06. You would be better off choosing your rifle
according to the weight, the width of the butt, and the fit of the stock
than on the basis of 308 vs 30-06 chambering.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Thos.
Trebmalc
308 will do just fine. I have two rifles for deer. One is for walking , the
other for stand hunting. My walking rifle is a Ruger 77 in 260 Rem. My stand
gun is a Ruger Varmint/Target in 2506. I would use the 25 for walking ,but I
often cover many miles and at 11-12lbs fully loaded, it gets a tad heavy at the
end of the day. The 260 is a new purchase and I like it more each time I
carry it.
The 260 shoots 2" groups at 100yds, the 2506 does the same at 250. Both with
factory ammo.
REcoil in both is almost un-noticed.
DuckHunt
too heavy. I added a heavy barrel and lots of trimmings to a Ruger
10/22 then realized that it is now just too darn heavy to carry around
squirrel hunting anymore.
As for the added punch of the .30-06 over .308, I have a .30-06 and
I've dropped every deer I've shot with it in their tracks. On the
other hand, their isn't much ballistic difference between the two
rounds at typical hunting distances (< 200 yards) so I wouldn't use
that as the primary factor inn chosing one or the other.
My .30-06 kicks like a shotgun with slugs so you may want to factor in
the comfort level of placing 20 rounds down range also. I don't mind
the heavy recoil if the end result is serious stopping power.
As for accuracy, the Remington 700 is a very accurate rifle. The
varmint model is not required to get good accuracy.
DuckHunt
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:23:40 +0000, J Marcotte <marc...@grics.qc.ca>
wrote:
>We (my wife and me) look to buy our first rifles.
>
>I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
>
>Currently, I look at these two rifles:
>
> - Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
> - Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
>
>My wife hesitate between:
>
> - Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> - Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> - Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
>
>I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
>we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
>
>The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
>and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
>
>
>
>Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
>------------------
>Jonathan Marcotte
>Montreal, (Quebec)
>Canada
>
>___/)__/)________/)_____________________________________________
>Jonathan Marcotte
>marc...@grics.qc.ca
>Societe GRICS
>DSA - Taxation scolaire
>Montreal (QUEBEC)
>
>(514) 251-3700 Poste 3924
>
>PGP Id: 17DEBA35
>PGP Fingerprint: 00DC 62F2 C1D9 C4AD 22A6 7C9B 9104 994F
>
TGF110
heavy barrel, except tired and frustrated working through woods/thickets/stuff.
I'd also suggest you go to www.sightin.com and get their demo to see what the
different chambers/cartridges actually shoot like.
ted
Dacyak
appreciate the milder recoil. 243 cal is a fine round also
comm center
> "Thomas M. Reynolds" wrote:
> > > We (my wife and me) look to buy our first rifles.
> > >
> > > I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
> > >
> > > Currently, I look at these two rifles:
> > >
> > > - Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
> > > - Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
> > >
> > > My wife hesitate between:
> > >
> > > - Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> > > - Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> > > - Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
> > >
> > > I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
> > > we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
> > >
> > > The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
> > > and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jonathan
> > Jonathan, a couple of your assumptions can be questioned. First, the
> > .308 is plenty good for shooting deer and black bear sized game. For
> > Moose, it is probably too small.
>
> Only if the experience of most moose hunters counts for nothing. I am a
> 338 fan, and I think that it is an ideal moose round; my motto is that
> more than enough is barely sufficient. However, the overwhelming
> majority of Ontario moose are cleanly killed with 30-30's, 303 British,
> or 308 Win. With the 308, you would certainly want to use 180 grain
> bullets for moose, and you would be ill advised to try shots over 300
> yards. As long as you can be happy with those two relatively trivial
> provisos, the 308 will serve you well for moose.
>
> The recoil of 308 and 30-06 are very similar. Unless you compare rifles
> of identical weights with identical stocks, it is very difficult to the
> one from the other. IOW, a light weight 308 will recoil more than a
> medium weight 30-06. You would be better off choosing your rifle
> according to the weight, the width of the butt, and the fit of the stock
> than on the basis of 308 vs 30-06 chambering.
29 Nov 98
You may also wish to consider a .270 in medium weight. Less recoil than the
06 or 308 and just as deadly on big game.
Vince Yakamavich, Raleigh NC
>We (my wife and me) look to buy our first rifles.
>
>I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
>
>Currently, I look at these two rifles:
>
> - Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
> - Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
>
>My wife hesitate between:
>
> - Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> - Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> - Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
>
>I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
>we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
>
>The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
>and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
I don't think a deer would be able to tell the difference between the
.308 and the .30/06. Until you get into the REALLY heavy bullets
(like for Moose or bear) , the two cartridges are pretty much
neck-and-neck in power.
As for the weight differential and how it affects your hunting ...
well, guess that depends on HOW you hunt.
If you do a lot of walking, lugging a 9+ pound rifle will tire you
more. It's certainly more than I'd care to carry all day walking.
If you stay parked in a tree-stand all day, it probably won't matter.
=========================================================================
Given the situation you describe, I'd go with a lighter weight
Remington. 700 BDL comes in left-hand as well.
As far as accuracy goes, the Varmint (if tuned) should hold sub 1"
groups at 100 yards. The light weight BDL should do 1"to 2" out of
the box. Is that difference in accuracy WORTH the extra weight and
extra dollars?
That's a personal decision you have to make.
Good luck.
Thomas Fournier
tolerance, stock fit, balance, and brute strength. Another that gets
very little press is the sling. If you use one of those Boonie Packer
Safari Slings that is 2" wide and allows you to carry the rifle at the
ready across your front, then you can be happy with a rifle that is 2 or
3 pounds heavier than if you carried it in your hand all day.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Thos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blkh...@webtv.net
hunting as well as for larger game. I finally choose the Ruger No. 1
chambered in .22-250 . It's ideal as a long range varmint thumper and
is still usable for the deer, moose sized game. All you need to do is
be proficient with hat you shoot and choose the right load for the job
at hand.
For all those that doubt this cartridge on larger game...how 'bout
a 1000+ lb bull moose at 200 yds - the .22-250 dropped it with a single
shot to the ear
Progun
Ah, the caliber debate ever continues! I saw on one of your posts the
2506 and 243 mentioned. Both are excellent varmint and mid sized game
rounds. Accuracy and recoil would please your wife as well. Many of my
friends hunt with both and are very satisfied. With the availability of
bullet weights, you should be very happy with game up to whitetail deer.
I do know a guy who hunts elk with his 2506, but he is an exceptional
shot! Personally, I believe too much has been made about the size of
the caliber. Remember, placement is what really matters. Of course, I
really like archery hunting, so accuracy is imperative to me!!
Good hunting! Keep safe...Kevin
Thomas Fournier
>
> I had a similar situation- wanted a rifle to use for both varmint
> hunting as well as for larger game. I finally choose the Ruger No. 1
> chambered in .22-250 . It's ideal as a long range varmint thumper and
> is still usable for the deer, moose sized game. All you need to do is
> be proficient with hat you shoot and choose the right load for the job
> at hand.
> For all those that doubt this cartridge on larger game...how
> 'bout a 1000+ lb bull moose at 200 yds - the .22-250 dropped it with a
> single shot to the ear
A 22 LR will drop a moose with a single shot to the ear, but the 22 LR
is not a legitimate moose round either.
I don't doubt that you got a moose with your 22-250, but IMHO it was a
stunt. The chances for a tragic error were so big that it is hard to
construe what you did as responsible. Do the math.
A moose's brain is the size of a small flattened grapefruit: about
2.5"X4". Even if your rifle groups 1" at 200 yards at the range, you
have to double that to take account of the sub-optimal conditions you
find in the field. Already your group is almost as tall as the moose's
brain. Add to that a little range estimation problem, differences in
muzzle velocity caused by differences in temperature, variations in
trajectory caused by altitude and weather, a wisp of a breeze, the
moose's talent for unexpected movement. . . You and the moose were just
plain lucky that you did not shoot the poor beast's jaw off.
No one ever changed their mind because of a newsgroup argument, so I do
not expect you to admit that your lucky shot was a foolish,
irresponsible stunt. I only replied because my respect for the sport
and the game compels me to challenge dangerous silliness.
Keep your stick on the ice,
Thos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpeedCom
>long range varmint thumper and> is still usable for the deer, moose sized
>game. All you need to do is> be proficient with hat you shoot and choose the
>right load for the job> at hand.> For all those that doubt this
>cartridge on larger game...how> 'bout a 1000+ lb bull moose at 200 yds - the
>.22-250 dropped it with a> single shot to the ear
A 22 LR will drop a moose
>either.I don't doubt that you got a moose with your 22-250, but IMHO it was
>astunt. The chances for a tragic error were so big that it is hard
>to construe what you did as responsible.
I've gotta agree with *you*, Thomas.
The legitimate varmint/deer cartridge is a .257 Roberts or .25-06. Still that
isn't moose medicine. 6.5x55 or .270 Win is a proper minimum cartridge if
moose is in the equation.
Cheers/
Donald Carron,
Preserve endangered species; collect a complete set
Demo3
J Marcotte wrote:
> We (my wife and me) look to buy our first rifles.
>
> I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
>
> Currently, I look at these two rifles:
>
> - Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
> - Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
>
> My wife hesitate between:
>
> - Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> - Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
> - Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
>
> I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
> we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
>
> The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
> and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
> ------------------
> Jonathan Marcotte
> Montreal, (Quebec)
> Canada
>
> ___/)__/)________/)_____________________________________________
> Jonathan Marcotte
> marc...@grics.qc.ca
> Societe GRICS
> DSA - Taxation scolaire
> Montreal (QUEBEC)
>
> (514) 251-3700 Poste 3924
>
> PGP Id: 17DEBA35
> PGP Fingerprint: 00DC 62F2 C1D9 C4AD 22A6 7C9B 9104 994F
>
wistex shooter
they get real heavy after a while. get light weight guns, especially for
your wife, she will appreciate it.
you might consider the .223 or .243 or 6mm rifles, these have low recoil and
plenty of power for any deer.
texas and wisconsin allow .223 for deer -- probably other states do too.
how about the remington model 7 in .223 for the wife, and a 700 (man sized)
in .243 for you? you would shoot these a lot more and get more proficient
than with a couple of shoulder wackers in .308 or .30-06 .
enjoy.
Burt Mitchell
>
>> We (my wife and me) look to buy our first rifles.
>>
>> I'm left-handed and she's right-handed then we need two bolt-action.
>>
>> Currently, I look at these two rifles:
>>
>> - Remington 700 VS L-H (Varmint Synthetic) 26" HBAR, 308Win (9 lb)
>> - Remington 700 LSS L-H (Laminated SS) 22", 30-06 (7 lb)
>>
>> My wife hesitate between:
>>
>> - Ruger All-Weather 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
>> - Ruger Sporter 22 ", 308Win (7 lb)
>> - Ruger Target 26 ", 308Win (9 lb)
>>
>> I know that the 30-06 would be more appropriated for hunting, but
>> we want to make some target shooting during the summer.
>>
>> The Varmint is more accurate (because of the 26" HBAR) than the 30-06
>> and a lot more heavy, but too heavy for an hunting day?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan
The only reason that the 30-06 is more appropriate for hunting than the 308
is the fact that the 30-06 can use the heavier (220 grain) bullets. Outside
of that, I don't think you give up anything with the 308. If you plan to
hunt for moose, that might be a consideration.
The 308 is a more accurate cartridge than the 30-06. That makes it more
suitable for small game / varmint hunting. Seeing as how it can also be
used for big game, I think 308 would be the better choice for you.
Now comes the hard part. My youngest son bought himself a Savage 110FP in
308 Win with the thought that he could use it for deer and varmints. There
were a couple of things wrong with this. The first (as you pointed out) was
that a heavy barreled rifle is no joy to lug around while hunting. This was
the exact reaction from my 19 year old son who is in top physical condition.
He usually carries an M16, lots of gear and a helmet (101st Airborne) and he
thought the rifle was a bit heavy. Of course, he'll use it because it's
what he's got.
The second problem is this. You can get lighter weight bullets in 308, but,
to the best of my knowledge, none of them will have the explosive
performance on varmints of the fast 22 and 24 caliber bullets. Maybe there
are some out there now. You need to look around.
What kind of target shooting are you thinking of? If you plan to do
shooting where you will put a lot of bullets down the barrel in a short
time, you'll want a heavy barrel. If you're planning on plinking or the
occasional woodchuck, you don't have to take that many shots in a day. The
heavy barrel adds some target precision due to it's weight. It also
withstands the heat of a lot of shots better. However, you don't absolutely
have to have a heavy barrel to shoot accurately or at woodchucks. I know of
lots of folks who use sporter weight barrels.
When I'm target shooting I use a 223 with a heavy sporter barrel. I
probably only take 30 shots in an hour, if that many.
When I'm going for woodchucks I use a sporter barreled Remington 700 BDL in
243 Win. I have no problems taking 200 yard shots at woodchucks with this
rifle. It is plenty accurate for that just as it is. If I started to have
a lot of longer shots, I would get it accurized (barrel and action trued).
Take a look at the type of shooting you plan on doing. A sporter weight
(not light weight) 308 might be just the thing for you. On the other hand,
if the only big game you plan to hunt is deer, consider the 243 Win or 6mm
Rem cartridges. You'll also get less recoil with those smaller cartridges.
You will shoot those calibers better since you won't be anticipating recoil.
Burt
| Burt Mitchell |
| NRA Life Member |
Jonathan Spencer
<drt...@istar.ca> writes
[big snip]
>The recoil of 308 and 30-06 are very similar. Unless you compare rifles
>of identical weights with identical stocks, it is very difficult to the
>one from the other. IOW, a light weight 308 will recoil more than a
>medium weight 30-06. You would be better off choosing your rifle
>according to the weight, the width of the butt, and the fit of the stock
>than on the basis of 308 vs 30-06 chambering.
recoil is easily tamed by fitting a Pachmeyr 'Decellerator' butt pad. I
recently fitted one to my 30-06 and it has made a big difference.
To those who say "recoil doesn't matter on a hunting rifle since you'll
only fire one shot", I say "don't you ever *practice*?".
--Jonathan Spencer
j...@salvage.demon.co.uk (prefered) jona...@borer.demon.co.uk
==================================================================
Keith Borer Consultants - Forensic Scientists
Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR, England
tel: + 44 191 386 6107 fax: + 44 191 383 0686
Lat. 54 34.24 N Long. 1 20.17 W
==================================================================
John Chase
>From: Jonathan Spencer <j...@salvage.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Varmint rifle for deer hunting>>[ more snippage ]
>To those who say "recoil doesn't matter on a hunting rifle since you'll
>only fire one shot", I say "don't you ever *practice*?".
>--Jonathan Spencer
PRACTICE??? Why would I want to get WORSE?? <vbg>
-fg- (frustrated "birdie hunter")
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
jch...@enteract.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelin
>(not light weight) 308 might be just the thing for you. On the other hand,
>if the only big game you plan to hunt is deer, consider the 243 Win or 6mm
>Rem cartridges. You'll also get less recoil with those smaller cartridges.
>You will shoot those calibers better since you won't be anticipating
>recoil.
I agree a lot with the earlier messages that no reason 30-06 instead of
308Win. I tried to get a rifle I could use fro all my hunting and
shooting and bought a Rem model 7 (wery light) in 7mm-08Rem (nice
allroun caliber). The idea was that as warmint rifle I use Sierra 100gr
HP (3200fps) and for moose a 160 gr Barnes X 2800fps. My problem was
that the accuracy was wery poor with special hanloads i Was down to thre
shots within 2,5" (lots of flyers). To make the rifle shoot straight I
had a friend worked it over but nothing really changed before he changed
the barrel (heavy warmint barrel the rifle is still under 8 pound (but
costed extra time and money). My advice is try to get a light (short
action) rifle in caliber between 223 and 308, BUT TRY IT before you pay
anything!!
Good shooting /
Tom Rutledge
snip
> I tried to get a rifle I could use fro all my hunting and
> shooting and bought a Rem model 7 (wery light) in 7mm-08Rem (nice
> allroun caliber). The idea was that as warmint rifle I use Sierra 100gr
> HP (3200fps) and for moose a 160 gr Barnes X 2800fps. My problem was
> that the accuracy was wery poor with special hanloads i Was down to thre
> shots within 2,5" (lots of flyers). To make the rifle shoot straight I
> had a friend worked it over but nothing really changed before he changed
> the barrel (heavy warmint barrel the rifle is still under 8 pound (but
> costed extra time and money).
That is too bad. I bought an early Model 7 in 7mm-08, blued, and put a
bell and carlson stock on it, bedded it with acraglass. Once the barrel
was freefloated and action bedded to the new stock, it shot sub moa with
the 140 grain Nosler solid base (before that bullet was discontinued),
and around 1.5" with 120 grain ballistic tips or 160 grain partitions.
I have looked real hard a few times since at one of the stainless model
sevens with the 20" barrel and synthetic stock. Just can't decide
between .223 and .243 as walking varmint rifles or 7mm-08 again for
deer.
Unlike a lot of people, I won't recommend the .243 for deer. Anyone who
is a good enough shooter to reliably kill deer with the .243 doesn't
have to ask for advice. Sorta like if you gotta ask the cost, you can't
afford it. I've seen too many .243s bought for wives and kids who wind
up crippling game. Beginners oughts shoot 10+ pound rifles chambered
for more potent cartridges like the .270 or '06 'til they can get used
to the recoil. Light rifles in weenie calibers oughta be reserved for
people with a lot of experience.
Tom
David J. McBride
>Anyone who is a good enough shooter to reliably kill deer with the .243
doesn't have to ask for >advice. Light rifles in weenie calibers oughta be
reserved for people with a lot of experience.
Does that mean you qualify? For the "weenie calibers" that is. Or, are
you saying that you shoot all those high velocity, straight-shootin',
shoulder bustin', whiz-bang, drop-em-in-their tracks, knock-em-dead magums
'cause you're not experienced enough to get the job done with those "weenie
calibers?"
Which category do you fall into, Tom?
Point of fact is that there are probably just as many cripples from guys
who can't shoot their behemoth, belch-fire magnums to point of aim, or who
think that more powder will make up for their marginal (if not lack of)
ability to handle the recoil of a hard-kicking non-weenie caliber.
Man, that was a lot of hyphens.
Tammi Kromenaker
the gun effectively. Going down in caliber size means that I have to be
able to hit my target and limit myself as to what types of shots I take.
While I would not go down into the .22 caliber(they are legal here in ND), I
would certainly make certain I was capable of a clean kill if I did.
> Point of fact is that there are probably just as many cripples from
guys
>who can't shoot their behemoth, belch-fire magnums to point of aim, or who
>think that more powder will make up for their marginal (if not lack of)
>ability to handle the recoil of a hard-kicking non-weenie caliber.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutledge
> Tom Rutledge wrote in message <367560...@sou.edu>...
>
> >Anyone who is a good enough shooter to reliably kill deer with the .243
> doesn't have to ask for >advice. Light rifles in weenie calibers oughta be
> reserved for people with a lot of experience.
>
> Does that mean you qualify? For the "weenie calibers" that is.
David -
I reckon if anyone does.
I've gotten 20+ deer in 20+ years; I tried the .223 a few years back.
Even with perfect shot placement at short range with the best bullet
available, results were dismal. The deer went down and got back up. I
hadta knock it over by hand and finish it with a knife. I don't plan to
repeat that foolishness again.
>Or, are
> you saying that you shoot all those high velocity, straight-shootin',
> shoulder bustin', whiz-bang, drop-em-in-their tracks, knock-em-dead magums
> 'cause you're not experienced enough to get the job done with those "weenie
> calibers?"
I shoot 'em, some, but not because of lack of experience. Fit the gun
to the circumstances you're shooting under.
> Which category do you fall into, Tom?
Neither ... like I said, I match my gun to the conditions.
> Point of fact is that there are probably just as many cripples from guys
> who can't shoot their behemoth, belch-fire magnums to point of aim, or who
> think that more powder will make up for their marginal (if not lack of)
> ability to handle the recoil of a hard-kicking non-weenie caliber.
Absolutely! Granted!
So, instead of going to extremes in either direction, here's the advice
I give: for beginning hunters, get a standard weight, short action bolt
action sporter in a medium caliber. That means something like a
standard Ruger, Winchester, or Remington sporter in 7mm-08, 7x57, .308,
or the new .260 Remington. Weight should be 8 to 8.5 pounds with a 2-7X
or 3-9X scope. They have a substantial advantage in "killing power"
over a weenie gun like the .223 or .243 without the recoil of the long
action or magnum calibers. The "full size" weight keeps the recoil down
and makes the gun more stable & shootable for the novice who's
struggling with buck fever.
Anyone who can't carry around an 8.5 pound rifle is gonna have a hell of
a time hauling out a 150 pound buck.
I think my dad did it about right; I started hunting with a bolt action
Savage .30-30 with a 2-7X scope. After a couple years, I got a pre-64
model 70 in .257 Roberts. I didn't fool with anything smaller than the
257 or bigger than the '06 for deer hunting for the first 10-12 years I
hunted. Since then, I've used stuff from the .223 to .338 in
ultralight rifles to varmint rifles and several .44 revolvers, all with
some success.
Given what I've learned in that time, I think the .223 can be used but
it's a stunt. .243 ... in the right hands, with someone who has
experience enough and is calm enough to know when not to shoot, is ok.
Real deer cartridges start with the .257 Roberts and 100 grain bullets;
anything bigger that the shooter can handle is ok with the right bullet.
What ya don't want to do, though, is start someone out with an
inadequate gun in an inadequate chambering, have 'em cripple a deer, and
make a non-hunter or anti-hunter out of 'em. I've seen it happen.
My rule of thumb ... medium caliber in a medium weight gun for
beginners.
Tom
Richard
Tom your opinion isn't a bad one. Having said that I think the 243 is
a good choice. It doesn't scare the hell out of youngsters and its
not bad for long practice sessions. Frankly, I haven't shot the 7mm's,
so I'm ignorant to their kicking.
I have shot speer bullets through white tails (quartering) and the
farthest they have gone is 60 paces. Most have dropped in their
tracks. Maybe my time will come.
I can hunt deer and chucks with the same load. If I see a black
bear I would rather have my .35 Remington.
Robert W. St. G. Fisher, IV
most of the places I hunt here in central NC) a small caliber rifle
works just fine. I use a .223 with soft-tips and haven't had a problem
with it yet. 2 shots in the last 2 years = 2 deer in the freezer...one
dropped immediately, the other ran ~50 yrds and then fell dead. The
down side is that if they do run at all, they won't leave much of a
blood trail. Of course, if you can't hit your target it doesn't matter
what you use. I have heard plenty of stories of people hunting on the
ground with a rifle (not a good idea in flat country) and taking 3 or 4
shots at a deer with a .30-06 or 7mm Rem Mag (!) . In that case, you
might as well use a shotgun (or go home and practice more).
Personally, I'll stick with my .223 when tree-stand hunting and take the
close shots. I don't know what kind of bullets you can get for a .243
or .22-250, and if they'll expand enough to give good energy transfer
before they exit the animal. If you can get hollowpoints or soft-tips,
that might work, but I'd be worried about shoot-through.
You just have to do an honest assessment of your shooting skills and
what type of terrain you'll be hunting in, but in my experience, the
.223 is fine at close range if you're careful not to shoot through any
brush (bad idea in any case!)
Good luck
Robert Fisher
Blkh...@webtv.net
his/her shot placement, the caliber should make minimal difference
(within reason). I use a Ruger No. 1V chambered in .22-250 for both
varmints and white-tails. I have hunting partners that have
successfully drpped deer with a single shot from a .22 Magnum and have
heard stories from older hunters that tell of using .22 LR for deer. As
long as one is proficient with ther respectful frearms, they are
comfortable to be able to humanely dispatch a given animal with the
chosen caliber,and are within the allowed calibers for their state, the
actual caliber should have less concern placed on it.
Personally, I would choose a short action 7-08 or .243 as a
varmint/deer rifle. (Model 7 or Ruger M77 or No.1). For larger game -
moose- perhaps a .30 caliber. The moose nestled in my freezer was
dropped with a 7-08.
capt. h. patterson ,therapy charters
I was with used my 3006. The deer did not go a yard I shoot a lot and
was confident in bullet placement(55gr bullet)
David J. McBride
<367D3F92...@mindspring.com>...
>You just have to do an honest assessment of your shooting skills and
>what type of terrain you'll be hunting in, but in my experience, the
>.223 is fine at close range if you're careful not to shoot through any
>brush (bad idea in any case!)
I do not recall the source but remember hearing that the Texas Parks &
Wildlife Department estimates that around 30% of the deer taken every year
in Texas are with .22 centerfires. In a state that harvests almost 500,000
whitetails every year that's 150,000.
FWIW.
Coyot...@webtv.net
have killed countless coyotes with lucky shots at ridiculous distances.
I hunt in KS & OK and I will admit I think a .270 is more appropriate in
KS. but anything 185# and under the 243 is super. I think it will give
the 22-250 a run for its money on distance too.
Scott...
Charlie Sorsby
David J. McBride <REC-H...@BIGFOOT.COM> wrote:
= Tom Rutledge wrote in message <367560...@sou.edu>...
=
= >Anyone who is a good enough shooter to reliably kill deer with the .243
= >doesn't have to ask for >advice. Light rifles in weenie calibers oughta be
= >reserved for people with a lot of experience.
=
= Does that mean you qualify? For the "weenie calibers" that is. Or, are
= you saying that you shoot all those high velocity, straight-shootin',
= shoulder bustin', whiz-bang, drop-em-in-their tracks, knock-em-dead magums
= 'cause you're not experienced enough to get the job done with those "weenie
= calibers?"
Are you suggesting that the only alternative to the ultra-light
cartridges are "those high velocity, straight-shootin', shoulder
bustin', whiz-bang, drop-em-in-their tracks, knock-em-dead
magums (sic)"?
Or are you lumping the .308 Win., .30-06 Springfield, .280 Rem.,
.270 Win., and myriad other heavier non-magnum cartridges with that
description?
(For what it's worth, while I didn't see Tom's post that prompted
the one I'm responding to, I rather doubt that he was suggesting a
so-called "magnum" cartridge for someone as an alternative to
the .243 Win.)
It seems to me that neither Tom's point nor yours are served by
inventing clever names for the class of cartridge that you comment
upon.
It also seems to me that both the very light cartridges like the
.243 and the "..... magnums" may be inappropriate for *some*
beginners; that they *both* require a certain amount of experience
to be used effectively. To be effective and sportsmanlike, the
hunter must recognize (and work with) the limits of his weapon and
of himself. The inexperienced hunter may well be incapable of
doing that either through a lack of well-developed judgment or
through ignorance of those limitations.
It behooves *anyone* touting their favorite cartridge or class of
cartridges or the ones that they consider most appropriate for
beginners[1] to include description of the drawbacks of that cartridge
or class of cartridge as well as the good points. Things like the
lack of momentum (for lack of a better word) of light bullets, the
heavy recoil and muzzle blast of the magnums and their effect of
one's shooting, the fact that in any calibre the light bullets at
one of the spectrum have been designed for an entirely different
class of game than have have the heavier ones at the other end of
that spectrum, ...
[1] And one must lump anyone requesting information about "a good
low-recoil cartridge for X" into that category because if they knew
all these things, they would likely know of "a good low-recoil
cartridge for X." And, in this case, it behooves one to also
remind the person asking the question to inform "X" of these
things.
In none of these circumstances, in my opinion, is it a safe bet
that common sense will prevail without prompting. So, before this
degenerates into yet another religious war between the proponents
of small-calibre and those of any other class of cartridges, I
suggest that each of you who choose to give advice on the topic
re-read your own posts with a critical eye to see if you are really
giving good information that will be helpful to the person who
requested it or are merely touting a favorite cartridge or standing
on a favorite soap box. In my opinion, there is *no* cartridge
that can be recommended in vacuo, so to speak--all recommendations
require context. If you haven't the time or patience to provide
that context for the cartridge that you would recommend, I suggest
that you don't bother to recommend it.
--
Best regards,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby Wheeling, WV "I'm the NRA!"
c...@hgo.net www.hgo.net/~crs USA Life Member since 1965
David J. McBride
From: Charlie Sorsby <c...@hgo.net>
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Date: Saturday, January 02, 1999 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Varmint rifle for deer hunting
>cartridges are "those high velocity, straight-shootin', shoulder
>bustin', whiz-bang, drop-em-in-their tracks, knock-em-dead
>magums (sic)"?
>
>Or are you lumping the .308 Win., .30-06 Springfield, .280 Rem.,
>.270 Win., and myriad other heavier non-magnum cartridges with that
>description?
>
>(For what it's worth, while I didn't see Tom's post that prompted
>the one I'm responding to, I rather doubt that he was suggesting a
>so-called "magnum" cartridge for someone as an alternative to
>the .243 Win.)
>It seems to me that neither Tom's point nor yours are served by
>inventing clever names for the class of cartridge that you comment
>upon.
>
>It also seems to me that both the very light cartridges like the
>.243 and the "..... magnums" may be inappropriate for *some*
>beginners; that they *both* require a certain amount of experience
>to be used effectively. To be effective and sportsmanlike, the
>hunter must recognize (and work with) the limits of his weapon and
>of himself. The inexperienced hunter may well be incapable of
>doing that either through a lack of well-developed judgment or
>through ignorance of those limitations.
>
>It behooves *anyone* touting their favorite cartridge or class of
>cartridges or the ones that they consider most appropriate for
>beginners[1] to include description of the drawbacks of that cartridge
>or class of cartridge as well as the good points. Things like the
>lack of momentum (for lack of a better word) of light bullets, the
>heavy recoil and muzzle blast of the magnums and their effect of
>one's shooting, the fact that in any calibre the light bullets at
>one of the spectrum have been designed for an entirely different
>class of game than have have the heavier ones at the other end of
>that spectrum, ...
Larry Cooper
..........
> So, before this
> degenerates into yet another religious war between the proponents
> of small-calibre and those of any other class of cartridges, I
> suggest that each of you who choose to give advice on the topic
> re-read your own posts with a critical eye to see if you are really
> giving good information that will be helpful to the person who
> requested it or are merely touting a favorite cartridge or standing
> on a favorite soap box. In my opinion, there is *no* cartridge
> that can be recommended in vacuo, so to speak--all recommendations
> require context. If you haven't the time or patience to provide
> that context for the cartridge that you would recommend, I suggest
> that you don't bother to recommend it.
>
cartridge" ad nauseum discussions I have read. Charley, your stuff
often has the ring of rationality to it, but this one was impressive.
Well said, and well written.
One of the problems with hunting is that, even if you have done a lot of
it, you haven't killed many animals when you start talking about
scientifically significant sampling. So many people have opinions that
they cling to and defend vehemently that are NOT in any way
representative of what a cartridge can do. There are also MANY
variables in any given hunting situation that effect the results of any
shot on game. People must begin to understand those variables and begin
to get rid of what they think are opinions supported by "solid"
evidence, but which are really just biased opinions.
Separating fact from opinion is important in discussions of cartridges,
and just about everything else. There is too little of it in the world
today, and it is refreshing to read Carlie's efforts to separate the
two.
Larry
Tom Rutledge
you've misunderstood what I was saying, I guess, or applied it without
understanding the exceptions and conditions I throw along with the
general rule.
I said the .243 in an ultralight rifle is a poor choice for a beginning
hunter. Taken to extremes, the .223 that other people choose is even
worse.
This is because the cartridges themselves are less than adequate; they
don't pack enough bullet weight to "mop up" if the hunter goofs. We all
TRY to make every shot perfect, but I think Mr. Murphy was a hunter ...
what can go wrong, will, at the worst possible time. When a chest shot,
apparently correctly placed, does not drop a deer, the ethical thing to
do is try a followup shot. The .223, and to a lesser degree the .243,
just don't throw a heavy enough bullet to break the pelvis of a deer
that's wounded and trying to escape from the hunter that shot it ... and
that pelvis is the target it's gonna offer you.
I don't have a problem with a short, light caliber gun in the hands of
the experienced hunter who has developed, over years in the field, a
sense of how much penetration & expansion is needed and what his gun can
deliver. I have a problem with putting an inadequate gun in the hands
of a novice user who hasn't developed that judgement.
The pattern seems to be, we buy a light gun for the wife or kid 'cause
it's easier for them to carry. Then we choose a weenie caliber 'cause
it won't kick 'em too hard when fired from that light gun.
I think a better choice is to let 'em carry the few extra pounds. I
think the ideal deer rifle weighs 8 to 8.5 pounds with a scope. I
think it should be chambered for 7mm-08, .308, 7x57, the new .260
remington, .280, .270, or .30-'06, all with medium to heavy for caliber
bullets. I will add the .257 Roberts and .25-'06 with 120 grain
bullets. And of course the .30-30 with 150 or 170 grain bullets. I
recommend a medium weight gun in a medium caliber. It's PROBABLY the
best choice for the veteran hunter as well.
The extra gun weight is not prohibitive; the extra weight will make it
easier to shoot accurately and allow it to "absorb" enough recoil that a
sufficiently effective cartridge can be selected.
Regardless of which direction we deviate from that "norm", we have to do
some serious thinking. Smaller calibers, even used well, increase the
chances of a losing a cripple. Simply put, the margin of error is
smaller and their ability to "mop up" after making a mistake is much
less. Larger calibers are harder to use well; even used well, they have
the potential to destroy a lot of meat.
I tend to be of the moderate velocity, heavy bullet school of thinking.
I think a hunter who can handle the recoil well is better served by
erring in the direction of a bigger gun than necessary than a smaller
gun than necessary. I'd rather shoot a deer with a 250 grain .338 elk
load than a 55 grain .223 varmint load. (If nothing else, just out of
respect for the deer.) Just so's I don't get taken out of context, I'll
state that I think a 140 to 160 grain 7mm-08 bullet is better than
either.
As far as our discussion about your son and hunting ... perhaps you're
oversensitive ... I think you took my comment out of the context I made
it in. For the *solo* hunter, if ya can't carry even a 15 pound rifle,
what are ya gonna do with a 150 pound deer when you get it down? How
are you gonna get it out? If you're hunting in a group, even if you're
a known invalid or juvenile, you can make arrangements with the other
members of the party to do the manual labor. That's pretty common ...
probably how most of us start our hunting "careers", and hopefully how
we end 'em, too.
David ... the problem is, you've taken what I said out of context ... I
assume unintentionally, and thus misrepresented my position. That
doesn't bother me, but I'd hate to have someone act on the "advice"
you've mistakenly attributed to me. Belted magnums are not every answer
to every situation; I've never claimed they are, and I never will. Nor
do I condemn, in absolute terms, the use of "minor" calibers, but I
think they're selected for use by the wrong people for the wrong
reasons.
Tom
ofelas
David J. McBride
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Varmint rifle for deer hunting
Tom:
Let me first apologize for letting my last post go public. I thought I
had billed it as "Reply to Author." I also thought I had saved it to "send
later" when I ran short of time. Little did I realize the next time I asked
for my mail it would go automatically. Oh, well.
>David McBride -
>
>you've misunderstood what I was saying, I guess, or applied it without
>understanding the exceptions and conditions I throw along with the
>general rule.
I don't think I've ever misunderstood you. Let me repeat something I
told Charlie in my previous post. You bring a lot of good information to
the gun and hunting groups and I make it a point to read your posts when the
subject line leads me to believe I mght pick up a tidbit on a subject that
interests me.
>
>I said the .243 in an ultralight rifle is a poor choice for a beginning
>hunter. Taken to extremes, the .223 that other people choose is even
>worse.
>
>This is because the cartridges themselves are less than adequate; they
>don't pack enough bullet weight to "mop up" if the hunter goofs.
And so were the 38-40, 44-40, 25-20, 32-20, and, I'm certain, a goodly
number of other puny cartridges that have doubtless killed tens if not
hundreds of thousands or even millions of deer over the last century. Tell
the uncounted thousands of dead deer that wind up on the wrong end of a .243
every year. Deer, IMO, are just not that hard to kill.
We all
>TRY to make every shot perfect, but I think Mr. Murphy was a hunter ...
>what can go wrong, will, at the worst possible time. When a chest shot,
>apparently correctly placed, does not drop a deer, the ethical thing to
>do is try a followup shot.
And how many average hunters can make a follow up shot on a running deer
anyway? But lets look at your first observation in the above snippet. How
many deer *ever* drop at the shot? I've been hunting almost 35 seasons;
I've killed maybe 25 deer. I can think of five that were dead before they
hit the ground. The other 20 ran some distance, some farther than others,
but none of those lost, all found in 5 or 10 minutes. My various
calibers of choice have been the venerable .30-30, .308, .270, .and 280.
I've been rolling my own for the
past six years now and have studied ballistics, accuracy enhancement, and
terminal performance a lot longer than that. I was born at night, but I
wasn't born last night.
The .223, and to a lesser degree the .243,
>just don't throw a heavy enough bullet to break the pelvis of a deer
>that's wounded and trying to escape from the hunter that shot it ... and
>that pelvis is the target it's gonna offer you.
Ah, yes, the Texas heart shot. If you're trying to break his pelvis
then I'd say you're aiming too low. But, I've got a 90 grain Speer Hot Cor
that says if I hit him in the tailbone he's going down. It's moot anyway;
how many of us (myself included) are going to make that shot or any running
shot. Except, of course, experienced hunters (such as yourself). Me? I
won't even try one; out of respect for the animal. I'd rather take a
standing, broadside shot at 300 yards with a 95 grain Ballistic Tip than
chance wounding a buck in high gear angling away at 75 yards with my .280
Ackley.
>
>I don't have a problem with a short, light caliber gun in the hands of
>the experienced hunter who has developed, over years in the field, a
>sense of how much penetration & expansion is needed and what his gun can
>deliver. I have a problem with putting an inadequate gun in the hands
>of a novice user who hasn't developed that judgement.
Everyone of us who has ever picked up a rifle in the field for the first
time is a novice. And novices make novice mistakes. I'll bet the vast
majority of everyone who has hunted has lost an animal in their hunting
career, more than a few veterans. And I doubt the .243 was the culprit any
more often than any other
cartrdige. Any bullet from any cartridge fired from most any gun in the
hands of the inexperienced probably has the same chance of missing its
intended mark
(given a sufficient sampling). I doubt it makes much difference what
caliber you're holding when buck fever strikes.
How many bullets do we recover from deer? My experience is that a chest
or lung shot deer seldom stops a bullet from passing through the entire
body, and that includes most of those shot with a 100 grain 6mm. I once
recovered the
remains of a 139 grain Hornady from my .280. The 125 yard shot found the
spine and the remaining 80 grains lodged there. Here's one I'll give you:
One year my wife, shooting the.243 BLR (I bought for her), tagged a whopping
100+ pound whitetail on a quartering away shot using a 100 grain Corlokt
(sp?). We recovered the jacket (only) under the hide at the right front
shoulder after the bullet entered in front of left rear ham. I doubt it was
a 50 yard shot. Does that prove your point? At what point in the deer's
death did the cartridge or bullet fail? *My* only loss resulted from a
walking, broadside shot a the incredible distance of 20 yards. I don't
think the .308's 180 grain round nose bullet ever opened up; I never saw
that deer again nor did anyone ever find the first drop of blood. It
happens with lots of cartridges, including the ones you like to recommend.
Granted, two opposing examples do not make a case.
>The pattern seems to be, we buy a light gun for the wife or kid 'cause
>it's easier for them to carry. Then we choose a weenie caliber 'cause
>it won't kick 'em too hard when fired from that light gun.
>
>I think a better choice is to let 'em carry the few extra pounds. I
>think the ideal deer rifle weighs 8 to 8.5 pounds with a scope. I
>think it should be chambered for 7mm-08, .308, 7x57, the new .260
>remington, .280, .270, or .30-'06, all with medium to heavy for caliber
>bullets. I will add the .257 Roberts and .25-'06 with 120 grain
>bullets. And of course the .30-30 with 150 or 170 grain bullets. I
>recommend a medium weight gun in a medium caliber. It's PROBABLY the
>best choice for the veteran hunter as well.
You said, "I think . . . " three times just now and your opinions are
all good, solid choices. I can live with any of those (I have and still
do). And they are the opnions of lots of us who go afield every year and
are the best choices for the vast majority of us. I've never even shot at a
deer with a .243 but I will not feel undergunned if I ever want to (even
though
I'm not a novice). *I* think among all the cartridges you mention (and you
can add the bigger powder burners) the primary differences in ability to
deliver a lethal shot is in each one's relative effective range, especially
past 300 yards. All but a novice knows that as animal bulk and weight goes
us then so should caliber and bullet weight.
>The extra gun weight is not prohibitive; the extra weight will make it
>easier to shoot accurately and allow it to "absorb" enough recoil that a
>sufficiently effective cartridge can be selected.
>
>Regardless of which direction we deviate from that "norm", we have to do
>some serious thinking. Smaller calibers, even used well, increase the
>chances of a losing a cripple. Simply put, the margin of error is
>smaller and their ability to "mop up" after making a mistake is much
>less. Larger calibers are harder to use well; even used well, they have
>the potential to destroy a lot of meat.
>
>I tend to be of the moderate velocity, heavy bullet school of thinking.
>I think a hunter who can handle the recoil well is better served by
>erring in the direction of a bigger gun than necessary than a smaller
>gun than necessary. I'd rather shoot a deer with a 250 grain .338 elk
>load than a 55 grain .223 varmint load. (If nothing else, just out of
>respect for the deer.) Just so's I don't get taken out of context, I'll
>state that I think a 140 to 160 grain 7mm-08 bullet is better than
>either.
Nobody is suggesting one should attempt a grizzly with any caliber short
on ability. But, the post that began all this was about varmint rifles for
deer hunting. We're talking about deer here; not elk, not moose, not
caribou. I wouldn't attempt grizzlies, or moose, or elk (for that matter)
with a 6mm anymore than I'd try to stop
an armed robbery with a BB gun. And, even though I've known people who
filled their tags every year with a .22-250, I do believe the .22
centerfires to be pretty light fare.
>
>As far as our discussion about your son and hunting ... perhaps you're
>oversensitive ... I think you took my comment out of the context I made
>it in. For the *solo* hunter, if ya can't carry even a 15 pound rifle,
>what are ya gonna do with a 150 pound deer when you get it down? How
>are you gonna get it out? If you're hunting in a group, even if you're
>a known invalid or juvenile, you can make arrangements with the other
>members of the party to do the manual labor. That's pretty common ...
>probably how most of us start our hunting "careers", and hopefully how
>we end 'em, too.
>David ... the problem is, you've taken what I said out of context ... I
>assume unintentionally, and thus misrepresented my position. That
>doesn't bother me, but I'd hate to have someone act on the "advice"
>you've mistakenly attributed to me. Belted magnums are not every answer
>to every situation; I've never claimed they are, and I never will. Nor
>do I condemn, in absolute terms, the use of "minor" calibers, but I
>think they're selected for use by the wrong people for the wrong
>reasons.
It's not a problem for me, Tom, and I don't think I'm oversensitive
anymore than you think you're pompous and opinionated. I don't recall you
qualifying your remarks (about my son) at the time. Instead, I recall you
sort of apologizing in a
left-handed sort of way for kicking an ant bed. But, let me paraphrase some
of your past opinions relative to who you would eliminate from hunting:
- A person that can't handle the recoil of a .257 Roberts is probably
incapable of hauling a deer out of the woods and that hauling one's deer out
of the woods is a physical requirement for "responsible" hunters. - What's
the implication there; that my 76 year old mother will have to quit? She
has no physical disabilities.
- By the time a kid reaches the age of 12 . . . or 14 . . . I'd expect
them to be able to handle .30-06 level recoil or their parent(s) have been
doing a pretty pathetic job of teaching them to shoot. - How many kids
would you exclude? I don't think a lot of parents will consider themselves
"pathetic" either (I know I don't).
- . . . until you reach the level of the .375 H&H, recoil is MENTAL
(sic), something we talk ourselves into. - Mental?
How "out of context" is that, Tom? Without wishing to drag anyone else
into
this I will say that, if you will remember, these were some of your finer
points to someone who "took your message in the wrong tone." Ah, someone
else who misunderstood you, took your comment(s) out of context, who took
you in the wrong tone. Those pearls of wisdom I note in the paragraph above
were a response by you to a post that questioned your testosterone level(s).
And, who carries a fifteen pound deer (or elk) rifle? My Ackley has a
26 ich medium varmint barrel and probably goes 12. But I don't carry it
much more than the aforementioned four or five hundred yards to the blind;
often as not, less than that. I certainly wouldn't even considerit for a
walking hunt in many of the western states. The bulk of the
hunting east of the Rockies is PROBABLY done on ranches,
farms and paid leases. For the bulk of hunters getting a deer "out"
PROBABLY means a four or five hundred yard walk to the vehicle and a drive
back to camp for more muscle or the four-wheeler.
OK, I want to end this now. My only intention from the start was to
offer an opposing viewpoint to the "bigger is better" for which that I feel
Tom is a leading proponent. I am no zealot for the .243 (though there are
two in my household). I have relegated the cartrifge to my main coyote
control weapon. Hell, my original post (the one to which Charlie was
responding [offended]) was tongue-in-cheek to begin with. I guess my tone
was
misunderstood, I was taken out of context.
But, I stand by everything else I have attributed to Tom. Tom bears
listening to; he is among the more if not most knowledgeable people who
frequent the hunting and gun groups. He
*does* offer the novice, the inexperienced, a great reservoir of knowledge
and, I believe, experience. Just remember that he does, from time to time,
pontificate.
I'll bet he even smokes a pipe. ~/:o)
David J. McBride
Houston, Texas
Jim Nelson
>had billed it as "Reply to Author." I also thought I had saved it to "send
>later" when I ran short of time. Little did I realize the next time I asked
>for my mail it would go automatically. Oh, well.
I've had the same problem lately. When I try to respond via email my
message is addressed to:
"Rec.hunting discussion list" <REC-H...@BIGFOOT.COM>
It wasn't always this way, what has happened?
*********************************
Jim Nelson jne...@southwind.net
Derby, Kansas
*********************************