Power vs. Placement

Thought this was an interesting article that others might like.

From the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.firearms

Firearms and Ammunition

There are no simple answers when it comes to selecting a firearm and accompanying ammunition. How accurately you shoot is far more important than the type of rifle, cartridge, and bullet you choose. Alaska has some very large game animals, including 1600-pound mature bull moose and 1500-pound coastal brown bears. Moose or brown bear hit in the gut with a large caliber magnum rifle such as the popular .338 Winchester® Magnum is wounded and just as likely to escape as if it had been hit with a small caliber rifle such as the .243 Winchester®. The bore size, bullet weight, and velocity are of secondary importance to precise bullet placement in the vital heart-lung area.

It is important for the hunter to have a good knowledge of game anatomy, the ability to correctly judge distance, the discipline to take only shots that can be made with certainty, and the ability to shoot accurately from sitting, kneeling, and standing positions. You should be able to reliably place a bullet in a circle the size of the game's heart/lung zone from hunting positions at the distances you expect to be shooting. As long as the caliber is reasonable and a quality bullet is used, hunters kill game quickly and humanely with precise bullet placement.

Select a quality bullet
Photo of ammunition
Winchester (left to right): Partition Gold® 7mm, .30-06, .300, .338, Fail Safe® .375
If you presently own a rifle chambered for the .270 Winchester, 7mm-08, .308 Winchester or .30-06 and can place all of your shots in an 8-inch circle out to 200 yards from a sitting or kneeling position you can be a successful Alaska hunter. To be as effective as possible, these cartridges should be loaded with premium quality bullets that are designed to pass completely through a large game animal, if hit in the heart-lung area.

Big Magnums Not Needed
The rifle you bring hunting should be one with which you are comfortable. Because of the presence of brown and grizzly bears, many hunters have been convinced that a .300, .338, .375, or .416 magnum is needed for personal protection and to take large Alaska game. This is simply not true. The recoil and noise of these large cartridges is unpleasant at best and plainly painful to many shooters. It is very difficult to concentrate on shot placement when your brain and body remembers the unpleasant recoil and noise which occurs when you pull the trigger on one of the big magnums.

The two most common complaints of professional Alaska guides are hunters who are not in good physical condition and hunters who cannot accurately shoot their rifles. Because these hunters do not practice enough they cannot shoot accurately enough. They miss their best chance at taking their dream animal or worse yet, they wound and lose an animal. Most experienced guides prefer that a hunter come to camp with a .270 or .30-06 rifle they can shoot well rather than a shiny new magnum that has been fired just enough to get sighted-in. If you are going to hunt brown bear on the Alaska Peninsula or Kodiak Island, a .30-06 loaded with 200- or 220-grain Nosler® or similar premium bullet will do the job with good shot placement. Only consider using a .300, .338 or larger magnum if you can shoot it as well as you can the .30-06.

It is very popular now to purchase large magnum rifles equipped with a muzzle brake. Most muzzle brakes are very effective at reducing recoil. A .375 magnum with a muzzle brake recoils much like a .30-06. Before convincing yourself that you should use a muzzle-braked rifle, consider its disadvantages. A muzzle-brake increases the muzzle blast and noise to levels that quickly damage the ear. Even when just sighting in or practicing, everyone near you at the range will find the blast and noise bothersome. Anyone near the muzzle brake when the rifle is fired may suffer hearing loss or physical damage to the ear. You cannot wear ear protection when you are hunting and neither can your hunting partners or guide. An increasing number of guides will not allow a hunter to use a muzzle brake because of the danger of hearing loss.

Rifle Weight Reduces Recoil
Rather than rely on a muzzle-brake to reduce recoil, use a rifle heavy enough to reduce recoil. If you are planning on packing out moose meat, caribou meat, or a brown bear hide weighing hundreds of pounds, you can carry a 9- to 11-pound rifle including scope. A rifle of this weight in .300 or .338 magnum can be mastered with a lot of practice. You can also avoid using a muzzle-brake by selecting a cartridge that you can shoot comfortably and enjoy shooting enough to practice with frequently. For most hunters, the upper limit of recoil is the .30-06 or 7mm Remington Magnum®. A majority of hunters are more comfortable with a .308 or .270.

Recommended Type of Action
If you are choosing a rifle for hunting in Alaska, you should strongly consider a modern bolt action rifle made of stainless steel bedded in a synthetic stock. A bolt action is recommended because it is mechanically simple, can be partially disassembled in the field for cleaning, and is the most reliable action under poor weather conditions. Stainless steel is excellent for most Alaska hunting because it resists rust caused by rain or snow. However, stainless steel will rust with time so must be maintained after each day of field use.

Cartridge Selection
Alaska big game varies from the relatively small (deer, goats) to the largest game on the continent (brown bears, moose). In general, hunters should select a larger caliber for the largest game. Cover type should also play a role in cartridge selection. Sheep and goats are almost always hunted in the mountains where long distance visibility is the rule. A smaller, flat-shooting cartridge may be best here. Deer in the coastal forests of Southeast Alaska are often shot at less than 20 yards. Moose in the Interior may be shot at intermediate distances. Select your cartridge based on the expected circumstances.

Round-nosed versus Pointed Bullets
A high quality rifle bullet placed into the heart or lungs of a big game animal at approximately 2000 to 2800 feet per second will expand or "mushroom" and destroy the vital organs. The shape of the bullet has no direct effect on its function, its accuracy, or its ability to kill. A "round-nosed" bullet that penetrates and destroys a vital organ is just as effective as the most streamlined of bullets.

However, a pointed bullet does not lose velocity as quickly as a round-nosed bullet. For example, a .30-06 firing a 180-grain pointed bullet which leaves the barrel at 2700 feet per second, is travelling 2300 feet per second at 200 yards. In comparison, a round-nosed 180 grain bullet at the same speed will have slowed to 2000 feet per second at the same distance, because the pointed bullet can cut through the air with less resistance just like a sleek fighter jet. Under actual field conditions, this will make no difference between a good hit, bad hit, or miss. At distances beyond 200 yards, a pointed bullet will not drop as quickly as a round-nosed bullet. Most hunters should not shoot big game at distances further than 200 yards.

Bullet Quality versus Shape
Diagram of a Nosler Fail Safe Bullet.
Nosler Combined Technology
Fail Safe®
Diagram of a Nosler Partition.
Nosler Partition®
Diagram of Nosler Ballistic Tip.
Nosler Ballistic Tip®
Hunting


The bullet shape is not as important as the quality of the bullet and how well your rifle will shoot a particular bullet. Some rifles will shoot a pointed bullet more accurately and some will shoot a round-nosed bullet more accurately. You should try quality bullets of both shapes to find out which weight and shape produces greatest accuracy in your firearm.

A bullet must be "tough" enough to penetrate through skin, muscle, and even bone to reach the vital organs. It must also be "soft" enough to expand and disrupt the function of these vital organs. Throughout the history of bullet making, this has been the constant challenge—find the proper balance between "soft" and "tough."

Modern bullets are typically constructed from a copper or copper alloy "jacket" that surrounds a lead or lead alloy core, except at the very tip or "nose" of the bullet. Most conventional bullets have jackets that are thin near the nose and taper to a thicker diameter near the base. This method of construction is designed to control the rate of expansion, as the bullet will open or "mushroom" quickly toward the thin "nose" but will not "mushroom" as quickly near the base. Examples of this type of bullet are the Hornaday Interlock®, Speer Grand-Slam®, and Remington Core-Lokt®.

The advantage of these bullets is that they are relatively inexpensive and work well on most game animals at ranges from 50 to 200 yards. At typical velocities, these are excellent bullets for almost any game. One can say with high confidence that a big game animal hit in the heart-lung vital zone with one of these bullets will die swiftly and certainly.

Construction of Partitioned Bullets
The next step in bullet construction and bullet complexity is the "partitioned" bullet. These include the Nosler Partition®, the Swift A-Frame®, and the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw®. These bullets share a common feature; all of them have a tapered jacket that is "H" shaped (see picture). The cross-bar of the "H" is a part of the jacket itself. Each end of the "H" is filled with lead, a lead alloy, or tungsten alloy. These bullets are designed to expand quickly at the front but never expand below the cross-bar of the "H." In theory, this should be the best of both worlds: Excellent expansion to destroy tissue and a protected core that will ensure deep penetration.

Performance in the Field
The performance of partitioned bullets is excellent—they perform about as well in real life as in theory. If a moose, elk, caribou, or even brown bear is hit in the heart-lung vital area, these ultra-tough bullets often exit on the opposite side, leaving a better blood trail and ensuring a double-lung hit. The only negative of these premium bullets is cost. For example, a box of factory loads with Nosler®, Swift®, or Trophy Bonded® bullets typically costs at least twice as much as a box of conventional bullets.

To sum up on the subjects of firearm, cartridge, and ammunition selection: You can’t go wrong with a stainless steel bolt-action rifle chambered for a standard cartridge that you are comfortable with and can shoot accurately, loaded with a high quality bullet.

That is great information. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for posting. Copied this one to keep.

Great read. Thanks for sharing.

"The two most common complaints of professional Alaska guides are hunters who are not in good physical condition and hunters who cannot accurately shoot their rifles. Because these hunters do not practice enough they cannot shoot accurately enough. They miss their best chance at taking their dream animal or worse yet, they wound and lose an animal. Most experienced guides prefer that a hunter come to camp with a .270 or .30-06 rifle they can shoot well rather than a shiny new magnum that has been fired just enough to get sighted-in. If you are going to hunt brown bear on the Alaska Peninsula or Kodiak Island, a .30-06 loaded with 200- or 220-grain Nosler® or similar premium bullet will do the job with good shot placement. Only consider using a .300, .338 or larger magnum if you can shoot it as well as you can the .30-06."

Unfortunately, the deer hunting community has no shortage of "one shot wonders". It's the title I have given to guys who believe that just one or two shots before the season opener "to check their zero" is all the practice they ever require to harvest a deer. And yet, they remain determined to prove everyone else wrong by banding together and slapiing each other on the back after every miss or lost and wounded animal and saying "it happens to everyone."

This was written as an unfortunate result of too many folks not being familiar with/proficient with their rifles. Unfortunately, this is all too often the case. It reads like it was written to someone who knows next to nothing about hunting and hunting rifles/cartridges.

But if one takes from it that the .270 or .30-06 is just as effective as a .300 or .338 for large game like elk, moose, or (certainly) the big bears, one would be mistaken. That is simply not the case.

The ideal for these animals is to become familiar and proficient with a larger caliber for large game.

....in a light rifle, with possibly a removable brake, with little concern of the cost of ammo since it'll be the cheapest part of the hunt.

The author's comments are not unlike those of other professional hunting guides who have written similar articles.

My experience has always been that when it comes to words of wisdom, the knowledge shared by those who "do it for a living" are most valuable for their accuracy.

Some yes, some no. Every profession is that way.

I like their definition of adequate field accuracy, '8 inches at 200 from a sitting or kneeling position', beyond that it's hunting to get a shot within your capabilities.

Man I have seen that way too much.
And sitting with your rifle supported on both ends by a bunch of sandbags isn't practice for hunting.

Sitting on the sidelines is not allowed on Super Sunday.



+1

From an overall perspective I'd agree with most of the article, unfortunately not based on personal hands on experiemce, but from my personal interviews with large numbers of resident alaskan hunters, guides & the retailers that sell to them at Trade & Assc Shows & Dealer shows. FWIW the Eskimo natives kill more critters with IMO small dinky for game size calibers than not as subsistence hunters, that were a total surprise to me.

Other things that stand out to me in the article are.... the recc's to take 200 at max yard shots - cause most folks can't hit a KZ any farther than that 100% of the time... shooting from stable reliable classic field shooting positions that get you off the ground and out of the prone position - hard to shoot prone in knee/waist/chest high scrub ...using non magnum upper medium & medium Magnum calibers that the hunter is most familiar with using heavy for caliber bullets....and #2 on my List of Reasons when I bought a 9.3x62 in early '04 (when I was expecting a couple very large 6 figure insurance settlements from mulitple lawsuits) was hunting in Alaska, after going to Africa 1st.

The general 8" Kill Zone is no different than a WTail's either, or the need to learn and understand the anatomy differences in each game animal...kinda like hogs x WTails x exotics & think how hard it is supposed to be to reliably kill a running Nilgi, supposedly the most common shot taken.

so Yeah ...I could agree with most of this article, but then I was as familair with and could shoot a 300WMg in those days as easily as I did a 270

However, today I fit the " Out of shape " description waaay too much to even think about hunting over 3-5000' or where I have to walk more than mile or so on broken ground at 70.

I discovered AGAIN exactly how beat up & out of condition I really am... when I fell off the middle of a 3 high set of steps up to the back deck, when I missed a step coming down in a hurry by not paying attention last Monday nite and DID NOT bounce off the concrete patio as I always used to, needing to go get some pictures at the ER to see what all I felt had broke this time...nuthin showed to be broke... but I didn't get much sympathy from the Better Half when she had to cook the steak I was prepping the grill for before she drove me to the ER either. FWIW ...I walked IN to the ER from the truck...and 4 hours later could NOT walk out & took 3 days to get over it even with some "magic" pills. Can't do THAT in the Back Country or even take a chance on it.
Ron

HnF likes this.......

Darn good read. Just having this discussion with the wife. I got her a .270 was shooting 150g dropping em down to less power to see if she becomes more accurate. If she places all in nice tight group at 100yds to 150yds then I'd be happy with that. We practice with no fancy rest. Use my backpack or sometimes we will shoot from the blind. No sense in being completely comfy when shooting if your not going to be completely comfy when hunting.

I also have this sneaking suspicion that most of the guys who can't hit the broadside of a barn with a .300 Win Mag probably also can't hit the broadside of a barn with a .30-06. I think that the problem is one of overall competency and trying to make up for it with equipment.

Definitely correct. Too much plane, not enough pilot.

That's right.

Ok.

I agree. Get as solid as possible, either a bench or prone, to test loads, confirm zero, and learn your corrections for distance. Aftet that get off your belly or the bench and hold the rifle. I can reliably hit coyote vitals (just using as an example because they are small) at 700 to 800 yards if I'm stable. If I am not so stable it may only be 200 yards. But I know that, so I know what I need to do to get stable. My pack is set up for me to shoot from it while sitting on the ground. Thus far the farthest kill I've made from that position is 510 on javelinas. I can use a tree to help, or a truck door, or a blind window, or a fence, the list goes on. But if the shot wont allow any help, I know how far I am effective, and its much shorter than using something to help stabilize from.

Having a rest in the field is my #1 shooting priority. Period.

Makes total sense. That's why I mentioned my pack, its very helpful, the way I have it set up. However, we all know that seated on the ground still may not be high enough. Tote some sticks is a fine idea. I've made some tight shots standing, but I had a tree nearby to help. Those trees may not always be there, so theres where the sticks come in.

Main thing, in my opinion, is to practice those field shots in a controlled setting on a range or dry firing at the house. Ya gotta figure out what you have to do with your body to get a sight picture, keep it, and keep the rifle still during the shot. The main bad habit I see of shooters that come to my range is terrible trigger control and zero follow through. The fundamentals apply prone, on the bench, and every other position you may shoot from.

Ron, you just described me, many of my missteps

Kind of a different tangent but I think that too many people confuse plinking with practice. I try to practice with a specific purpose paying attention to the basics. When your plinking you may just be ingraining bad habits.

I guess I'm a one shot wonder. I check zero on my rifles every year and rarely shoot after I develop a load. I've never gone out thinking I really need to practice shooting and waste lead all afternoon. I grew up hunting something every day and practiced on live animals every day as a kid. I can't remember the last time I missed an animal and know I'm not going to shoot anything over 500 yards anyway. If you need the practice speak for yourself and go shoot. I'm confident that I can pick up any big game rifle that's sighted in and kill a deer resting on my knee every time out to 300 yards.

Having shooting sticks makes a night and day difference, and understanding distances in undulating terrain. I disagree with opinions stated that a 270 is not sufficient for elk. I've DRT'd elk with my 270 shooting 130 grain Fed Premium Nosler Balistic tips on multiple occasions. That' right, balistic tips DRT on elk. It's all about knowing and being confident with your rig, thus consistently making kill shots.

I don't see a post on here that said a .270 is not sufficient for elk.

OK, ballistic tips work great if shot placement is perfect. Here's my question? Why would you use a bullet that has a great chance of NOT working if you hit a shoulder bone, rib, etc.? In other words, why not give yourself the most margin for error-especially when you are using a caliber on the light end of the spectrum for such a large animal to start with?

This is especially true for BT bullets, which are strengthened with thicker jackets, etc. for larger game above .30 cal/180 grains, but are only designed for 50-60% weight retention below that. In other words, designed specifically for smaller/mid-sized game.

I rarely shoot offhand at game anymore. If I can't be sure of making a real good shot on a deer, I'll just pass. There's always tomorrow.

Back where I grew up, in eastern Louisiana, I hunted the edges of the corn and bean fields most of the time. And I hunted off of an old folding stool with a canvas seat. I carried it with me everywhere and hunted where nobody else ever hunted. The big bucks were patterning us. It wasn't the most stable of platforms, so I almost always had a stout shooting stick with me. I used to be able to sit in the cold for a couple of hours, all camo'd up and never twitch an eyebrow. I don't think I can do that anymore.

Firearms should be something that you enjoy taking out and shooting throughout the year, especially when you consider what you paid for them. Pick those that are a true pleasure to shoot and enjoy them in the same way you would a valued car or truck.

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

The art of field shooting is vanishing.

As has been said before bench and bags are used for setting zero and gathering DOPE. Then the work towards mastering the rifle begins: prone, sitting, kneeling,
off hand. It takes 1000's of rounds IMO to begin the journey and 1000's more to attain master status.

Buying a wiz bang mag rifle with a big 50mm 20x scope with markings to 900 yards does not a master make.

^^Very good reason to have a bolt action .22 lr to go with the centerfire.

And the art of hunting with it. It has been replaced with nothing more than sitting in an old office chair waiting for something to show up and eat within a 12-foot circle.

Those guys who used to shoot at running deer offhand wounded a lot of animals too. People didn't seem to mind that as much as they do now. I think society has evolved.

I was in a gun shop on Saturday and saw one of these for the first time:

Bog Pod Xtreme Shooting Rest

Fits onto a shooting tripod so that the rear of the rifle as well as the front is held steady.

100% agree. Or maybe a dozen of them?

We shoot deer in Texas we not hunt them, but that is another topic.

We manage deer and hunt particular deer. I shoot deer in CO.

of course placement is important - but if you have hunted enough you know every shot is not a perfect set up - have enough gun and bullet is there to offset mistakes for placement. If hunting trophy deer you need overkill rather than speed -

When I hunted moose in Finland in '84, all of the Hunters had to qualify for a Permit by successfully shooting a 30 caliber 200 grain bullet - we used a borrowed SAKO 30'06 with a dinky 3x9x36 jap scope, at 100 meters, and hit a full sized moose target 4 of 5 times in the "black" 7ring or better, with the target moving at 40kmph across a 100 meter track, that was started on your call while holding the rifle at the port arms position at the beginning of each shot cycle.

The Europeans in the crowd were totally confortable with this procedure and passed the Shooting Test easily, the Americans struggled a little with the guys from the Rockies & western Canada getting the best scores...I passed after some extra practice rounds and the new to me techique was explained to me by a guy from Scotland.

As far as plinking offhand being a waste of time, I respectfully disagree. It all depends on how you describe plinking and with what for a rifle and targets. I learned more plinking at moving targets, usually big brown river rats in the Trinity river bottoms over fresh baited plots at 100 to 300 yards with a 243, betting a $1 a shot in a Mexican Sweat type betting game, than I ever did anyhwere else...when my hourly gross pay was $4.25.

I had learned to shoot iron sights at an earlier age on some Permain Basin Oil Leases as a 7 or 8 year old using a 22, when my Oil Scout Uncle would drop my older cousin and I off at the front gate of the lease, and we would plink our way a mile or two back to the drilling rig...shooting everything from dragon flys to rattlesnakes and sometimes enough game birds to feed the family with that nite, practicing for my cousin's Boy Scout Badges using the classic offhand, sitting, kneeling and standing positions. It was a total shock at 16 to learn that game birds had a season & limits, were never supposed to be hunted with a rifle, and you had to buy a license...who knew?

It all depends on what you call plinking...bottle caps at 50 feet for a dime or a quarter each... Center X on a Jax can at 100 paces or was it 133 paces or that fat rat across the river laying on a log at 2-300 yards on left edge of the pack for a $ a shot...standing on your hind legs with no sling allowed. Just Sayin' BTDT and it's all in the eye of the beholder.
JMHO & YMMV
Ron

Ron, when you put money on it, it was no longer plinking, it was target shooting at live targets. Plinking is often just shooting without puting in the concetration neccasary to improve. When your concentrating on putting everthing together, to make the shot, your practicing with a pupose.

Agree with most of that OP, have seen it too many times where people were hunting with more gun than they were comfortable with. For the big game elk and above bigger is better but only if the hunter is able to shoot the bigger gun. Something else be ready for another shot, not just look at your first shot. Unless the critter is down for the count be ready for a followup shot and it it is not down sling more lead into it. That is one of the biggest complaints I have heard about American hunters from African PHs.

As far as shooting and getting ready for season, I like to go through various field shooting positions stretching the distance learning my limits then stay within those limits during season. One game we play is golf ball races with 22s, off hand and run a golf ball 100 yards to the berm (helps that there is almost no grass on the range).


As far as hunting, the closer the better for shots. Some of my most memorable shots on game are not the long ones but short shots (less than 20 yards) where it was the getting in position for the shot more than the shot itself. Shoot a doe in her bed at 12 yards, slip in to less than 20 yards on a feeding buck, call in a rutting buck to less than 5 yards before the shot... Sure these days I hunt some at a feeder but when conditions are right for still hunting or spot and stalk that is more fun.

Bought my Alaska rifle years ago, never have made the trip which is something I regret at this time. Remington 700 in 350 Remington Magnum, it has racked up some good kills elk, mule deer, hogs and whitetails. Have no doubt it will be ready if I ever make that Moose hunt.

I want power behind my placement.

Good nuts and bolts article from Alaska F&G. It simply reiterates the obvious fact (often lost to many of us) that practical field experience trumps gadgetry every time.

The first time I ever hunted brown bear in Alaska, I showed up in Cold Bay with a new .338WM stoked with 250 gr Noslers. I was partnered with an experienced hunter from Seattle whose outfit was the same rig he used everywhere he hunted: a tang Ruger 77 in 30-06 with a 2x7 Leupold shooting 180 NPTs in factory Federal Premium ammo. Guess who killed the big bear? His was 9.5 ft squared with a 28"+ skull that is well up in the B&C record book.

I also agree that frequent practice from field positions will pay dividends when you finally spring for that dream hunt in Alaska, Africa, or the Rockies. On the small rural property I now own, I have cobbled together a "golf course" of sorts....9-10 "holes", or shooting stations, that vary from around 100 yards to 220 yds. We toss shooting sticks, bipods, backpacks, etc in the back of the UTV and we play a round of shooting-golf. At each "hole" we fire three shots using various means of support, sans benchrest bags, and total up the scores. This informal game is fun and the results often sobering. I wish we could practice at ranges up to 300 yards or so, but my small property size makes this impractical and unsafe. But no matter....I've never had to shoot a head of big game at more than 400 yards (370 yds, actually).

It is my personal opinion that a guy who becomes comfortable and proficient with his .30-06, .270, or 7x57, will gradually be able to move up to the heavier magnums, providing he takes it slow and easy. Just don't go out and buy a new .375 Holland when all you've ever shot was a .243. And don't make the mistake of falling for the newest whiz-bang gadget in a futile effort to make up for lack of personal practice.

Good article, jeffbird....

I'm one of those guys the article describes. My main deer rifle is a 30-06 and my bigger game rifle is a 338mag. I've been able to shoot sub one inch groups with my 30-06 with 150 grain bullets, but every deer I shot with them, they just punched right through the deer without doing a lot of damage. I moved up to 165 grain bullets and found that with the Federal Premium loads, I could get down to just over an inch groups at 100 yards. I really like the results I get out of those bullets, so I'm sticking with this load. I buy the same ammo for my .338 and have found it to be devastating on everything I've shot, from elk to gemsbok. I haven't shot a moose yet, but that's what I'm taking when I go moose hunting.

I also have a muzzle brake on it. What I found happening is that after so many rounds, the recoil was affecting me. First few shots where good, then my groups would get bigger. 2 inches at 100 yards is about as good as I've managed to shoot with that rifle, but it took the muzzle brake for me to be able to do that consistently.

What I question more then anything in the article is comparing target shooting accuracy to hunting in the field accuracy. Maybe I misread it, but considering 8 inch groupings accurate is just crazy. I aim for the heart. You take out the heart, he is dead. Anything else and it becomes a guessing game if and when it will die, and how far it will go. For me, that means you have a 4 to six inch target, depending on what you are hunting.

While I'm sure plenty of very large animals have been shot with smaller calibers, I'm also sure that a lot of them have been wounded and lost that wouldn't have been if a larger caliber with a bigger bullet had been used.

Eddie

I'm

Because as the article points out, you go with the equipment and ammo you practice with and have confidence in. I've killed many big hogs with this load and big bucks with shoulder shots DRT.

With elk, I don't take the shot if I'm not confident I can make a heart lung shot. If there's a chance I don't make that shot, I don't take it. No different than bow hunting, some shots I just don't take.

The article said adequate and was referring to hitting in the heart lung area. If you concentrate on just the heart then you need to be more accurate.

I understand that. I am the same way when it comes to distance. I know my limitations and I'm just not going to exceed them.
But, to me, your situation is different. If you simply substitute a Partition, Accubond, TSX, or any number of monometal/bonded bullets nothing will change except you will be using a bullet much more suited for elk. Perfect shots don't always happen-despite our best efforts. Even with perfect placement, an elk rib stands a good chance of leading to a poor result with a 130 grain Ballistic Tip. Sure, they work spectacularly when all goes well. But, they fail spectacularly when all does not. I've seen it.

I don't really have any hard facts, but I would assume shooting a moose/bear at 200 yards with a 200 grain partition out of a 30-06 or a 300 win mag will yield nearly identical results given the same shot placement. In my opinion the plusses of the magnum are only realized at extreme distance where most don't have the business hunting/shooting anyway. I have a 300 wby because I wanted one and I like it. I can shoot it just as good as my 270, but it doesn't kill deer/hogs any deader or faster than my 270 either.

Makes you wonder how we kill many big game species to the blink of extinction and many subspeices to extinction with non smokeless powder and then even after the invention of smokeless powder in the mid 1800's we still effectively killed big game with what many consider outdated insignificant calibers

We cleared a lot of land with an ax too. Today, there are better methods.

There is a reason every innovation from the the matchlock on forward was immediately adopted and it's predecessor immediately discarded from the 15th through the end of the 19th century.

That's true, but look at the sales of 300 RUM's, 300 wby's, 30-378 wby's, Winchester short mags etc. They are still all outpaced by the good old tried and true 270/30-06, etc. They make good articles but seem to always fall short.

That's a recoil thing. The calibers themselves are fine. But for most folks the .270/.308/.30-06 type rifles are where it's at. Which I perfectly understand.

Availability in the cheapos plays a role in that.

I see you agree with the effectiveness though

I agree a spear will kill a lion if all goes well. The Masai proved that. Course, it often didn't go so well....

If you want to call that effective, be my guest.

I see you still agree with effectiveness since we are now using <10 yard hand to hand combat for a red herring.

Bobo to be honest I'm not even really sure I'm following you.

If you are saying a Henry .44 Rimfire will kill stuff if you shoot it in the right place, enough times, at enough animals, etc., no one could disagree.

If you are saying it's as good a round as the .30-06, I don't believe I will agree with you.

In other words, in today's world, I wouldn't use it or imply anyone should use it by calling it an effective hunting round.

These agreements are funny. We agrue about magnum calibers when we market gunned subspecies of elk to extinction with black powder.

Surely you can see the humor in it.

So you're saying we should use disease as a weapon.

You talking about scew worms and whitetails, but nice try.

Screw worms knock out the bison, bighorns, grizzly etc too?

You think cattle and sheep don't carry stuff to pass on...

You check your historical time frames...then come on back

I guess because I've used the BT for the past ten years and it's never failed to kill what I was aiming at. If I had seen or experienced failures like you mention, I'm sure I would be shooting something else. I do find it hard to believe that an elk rib is gonna treat that bullet like it was a 22lr.

Well, IDK. Maybe?

I mean, it's classic apples and oranges. Market hunting from a different era. All the time in the world since it was a job, single-minded purpose, no thoughts about the future, etc., etc.....

Just doesn't seem relevant to a discussion about modern cartridge effectiveness where the goal is finding a particular animal within a given time frame and making sure you put it down.

To put it another way, I'm certain all those guys would have left their smokepoles by a tree after a 10 minute demonstration with a Springfield .30-06-had one been available.

God save our souls if we ever miss the heart and hit it the other 16" plus area of vitals of an elk

That's right there with it in westward expansion.

Still relevant...because they are still effectively used today.... Pretty coveted tag in mainly places at that.

Again one can not disputed the effectiveness of what black powder and outdated calibers did to many of our game animals.

I'll go back to my hole now and let yall argue the need for magnums and 4" heart shots.

I'm right there with you on that. I learn the heart/lung area of the animal I am after and shoot right for the center of it. (Excepting playing around with does, hogs, etc.). My goal is to put the animal down, not tell everyone what a great shot I made. Vitals are vitals. I want all the margin for error I can get.

The only exceptions are shoulder break-downs if I am hunting crazy thick cover where not finding one quickly is a real possibility.

Que 2moa target at 400 yards

My goal is to hit heart on any shot from at any angle...I want the HP to get it there.

When are so going to put the big boy up, and grab the bow?

I did once this year.

Yessir. That would be an 8" round.

Out west? Or Just at home. We need to give ulmer some competition

FJG,

If I remember correctly, you had 2 MOA targets in your recent match from 100 - 300 yards.

What was the percentage of hit/miss in your match overall?

And I'll add before seeing the answer that there is a bias in favor of shooters who show up to a match as being better than average overall.

I remember the match where I meet Chad. The field was full of really good shooters and about 50% missed their cold bore shot at 100 yards.

Home, across the river. I got close to his 199 this year. I hit heart on my deer despite the impossible angle.

No we had targets larger than 2 MOA at all but two stages. And nothing beyond 300 yards.

Stage 1 16" square 200 yards away, standing using a T-post for support
Stage 2 Hog 150 yards 12" tall x 18" long, choose prone, seated, kneeling, offhand, all sling only
Stage 3 Bobcat vitals 4" tall x 6" long 150 yards, seated in a chair using the Reaper Rest
Stage 4 6" and 3" clays 150 yards. Pick most stable position bench or prone.
Stage 5 Know your limits, 200 yards. 7", 6", 4", 2"
Stage 6 Prairie dogs 150, 200, 250, 300 yards, shot from a swiveling shooting bench
Stage 7 8" deer vitals, 219 yards, shot from a chair and out a wobbly box blind window
Stage 8 Barricade 200 yards, 2/3 IPSC, wooden support 2', 3', 4' off the ground
Stage 9 2 MOA target at 300 yards, make five shots
Stage 10 1" dot drill at 100 yards in 60 seconds
Stage 11 8" plate pendilum at 200 yards, be very fast to cycle and get back where the moving target will be

I'm forgetting one. I dont have percentages in front of me. I remember the T-post gave people fits. The positional unsupported gave most people fits. The bobcat was almost a freebie stage everyone did well on for the most part. The clays was also a high scorer. KYL crushed everyone. No one hit the little 2" square. Prairie dogs had only two clean it. Barricade wasnt very hard. 2 MOA at 300 was about half and half. The deer vitals was surprisingly difficult. The dot drill was harder than it looked. The pendilum was hard for two thirds of the shooters.

No, not everyone was sure enough shooters. Maybe six out of 22. Lots of folks had some very bad habits. And I don't mean that rude, just observations Chad and I both had. I hoped to get people thinking, and to encourage them to practice more. We made it a little tough, but very do-able as far as we were concerned. If Chad and I had shot it, I suspect he and I would have had a very high hit percentage, well above most everyone. Not trying to sound arrogant, just pointing out how it would've gone for guys that practice more. He and I both have businesses revolving around rifle shooting, so that's difference.

Bullet construction probably

V+ bullet construction

What were the most common issues?

No trigger discipline. Slapping the trigger, some so bad there was daylight between the trigger and their finger. No follow through, so bad that they'd just fire the shot and immediatly be looking over the scope to see what happened. Breaking cheek weld to cycle the rifle was very common. Magnification turned wide open throttle while searching for the target, and with the non-firing eye closed.

I'm not ashamed to admit I would probably not do as well as I'd like to think I would on that course. It sure sounds very fun and practical.

NP, that was the goal. Not impossible, not super easy, make people have some introsepection the day of, and the following days. I heard no complaints. Just folks asking when is the next one. I hope we achieved our goal of causing more practice with the rifle.

I thought it was very good course of fire. I did absolutely horrible on the prairie dog stage. I blame it on me trying to hold over and the fact it wasn't very comfortable for me. I was bad about breaking cheek wield as I had apparently not bumped my cases fully. Got that solved though and I'm ready for the next round.

Does anybody actually hunt anymore without hearing protection?

I refuse to hunt without some sort of plugs or passive hearing on. I like being able to hear, and i dislike what happens when you pull the trigger without it. The Surefire EP7 plugs are the bee's knees, and with the passive hearing protection we have today I simply don't understand why anybody would not wear it, even during a hunt. Even with plugs you still hear the sounds around you just fine.

Makes having a brake on your rifle tolerable, which means you aren't limiting yourself because of recoil. In theory anyway.

I always have ear protection with me and when I see a potential shot, I have them ready to go. I agree that hunting without ear protection is not good - especially long term.

No suppressor, I have ear plugs around my neck. The vast majority of the time I have time to install them prior to the shot. I went for years with no hearing protection, running grinders and an abrasive saw while doing my steel fab work. I can't stand it without hearing protection, now.

I wont go shooting without ear plugs, wont start the lawn mower, weed eater, or chain saw without ear plugs, and have even started using them when using a circular saw etc.

I typically don't wear hearing protection in the deer blind though.

I'm so deaf that it doesn't make much difference, but I wear earplugs 99% of the time now if I expect to shoot. I can't afford to lose what little hearing I have left.

This is my mindset now. I always wear muffs and foam ear plugs. Depending on the circumstances also add a suppressor.

Those of you that hunt without hearing protection absolutely without question should start using a suppressor.

One of the most painful mistakes I ever made was stepping out of the car at a shooting range before putting in some ear plugs. My ears are still ringing years later.

I use good earmuff sound protection in my woodworking shop and for shooting from my bench. For weed eating and chainsaw work, I wear a Stihl hard hat with face screen and ear muffs. But, for a shot here and there from the blind, I don't wear hearing protection.

And I'll tell you what I won't do again without hearing protection, and that's to shoot from under a roof, like the carport or shooting bench (under an open sided shelter). That was a painful mistake, and my hearing was, at best, damaged.

I'll admit I deer, elk, and predator hunt without hearing protection. I still hunt and need to hear what's going on around me. Twice I have heard elk moving, which allowed me to find them. If I'm doing any type of target shooting, I will use hearing protection.

As a contractor, I've gotten into the habit of always carrying earplugs in my front pocket all the time. Most days I wear them all day long. When hunting, I have them in my front pocket, and usually there is another pair in one of my jacket pockets. There is also another pair sitting on the window frame in my deer blind. My dad has lost most of his hear, my brother is getting there, and it's a very strong reminder seeing what they have to go through to understand others. Most of the time they just agree with whatever is said to them without knowing what was said because they get just as tired of asking everyone to repeat themselves as people get tired of saying the same thing over and over to them.

One of the things that I've always wondered is on those few times that I have shot game without any hearing protection, I've never had my ears ring. I barely hear the shot. My wife is new to hunting and has also had the same experience. Both her animals in Africa where shot without hearing protection, she just flat out forgot to put it in when getting into position for the shot. No ringing or discomfort at all.

Eddie

My attempt at reading what you typed, & without going ta web sight. The Tittle of Power vs. Placement is about using different callabur on different type hunts. Whin i ed into this thread. android opened it ta page 7. Now i've admitted my mind wonders, thought my android went inta a warp zone. Page 7 they ing about ear plugs. Personaly know person who very seldom was around guns. Yet, he lost just about all his hearing. Millitary if ya forgot your ear plugs, ya used cigaret butt. If your at range & doing alot of shooting. ta ear plugs. The hogs that seen on game cam, estamating weigh about 80# give or take 20#. Am using cheap .223 55gr hps. not sure twist of barrel, fps, 40yrd shot so wind shouldnt be in play, unless i fart. Have taken several larger hogs at close range with cheap .55gr fmj, taking the heart & lung shot, thinking it would go threw armor plateing on the tougher hogs. Very small entry & exet wound. Very little blood trail, most bleeding goes inta body cavity. Will set up i'm using have the power if placement is good.

Hogs been seeing on cam's are 80# give or take 20# some smaller. Will be using .223 55gr hps. Not sure of barrel twist, fps, shots 40yds or less. Am thinking if shot placement is good the .223 should have the power ta get job done. working hard on my english, my mind often wonders, thoughts.