One caliber away from contentment... who else?

[WAB]

The .44 magnum is the most commonly available and portable handgun of its power level. People carrying a .44 are folk that are looking to have the gun on their person when they need it mostly having their hands full with some other task. The 12 gauge or the rifle will be leaned up against a tree and possibly a world away. The .270 is a compromise choice for heavier game just like the .243 and I put it a worse choice than the .44 magnum because it loses in bore diameter and portability. So I have a compromise rifle leaning on the tree which if I get to will not be as good as something else better that I could have chosen to lean on the tree.

Clarification: A .270 Winchester is not a magnum cartridge. It can be used for metallic silhouettes. You may be crossing wires with the more rare .270 Weatherby Magnum.

Can't carry a rifle hiking in a lot of places without a hunting license during hunting season.

Handgun can fall under concealed license and not be considered a hunting implement.

I still can't say I'd ever pick a .270 where bears were a concern. Say whatever you like about bullet technology, but I can have the handgun on me and a bigger more powerful rifle is just better when the chips are down. I don't want to have to explain myself to the bear so he knows what he's getting shot with. An angry bear is a poor student for a lecture.

When I first moved to Alaska I carried a 12 ga when fishing. I kept setting it down as it was cumbersome. Then one day a bear joined me on a stream. I think the bear was closer than the shotgun. After that I carried a .44 in a chest holster.

 

[colorado]

Had the same experience in the Bob Marshall about 3 days in South of Hungry Horse lake. Fly fishing, my trusty BDL in 270 was leaning against a tree 50 feet away. Thought I was going to have to swim for it. I talked to him and he took off. Came back that night, I stayed up all night by the fire then left the best campsite I've ever had to him the next day. Figured it was his. I have a Springfield V16 in 45 Super I carry now when out in the woods

 

[DillonG]

On a serious note. I have a hard time not choosing a 7mm RemMag as the do it all caliber outside of DG.

Please change my mind, but it has a lot of positives.

 

[Ridge Runner]

The .44 magnum is the most commonly available and portable handgun of its power level. People carrying a .44 are folk that are looking to have the gun on their person when they need it mostly having their hands full with some other task. The 12 gauge or the rifle will be leaned up against a tree and possibly a world away. The .270 is a compromise choice for heavier game just like the .243 and I put it a worse choice than the .44 magnum because it loses in bore diameter and portability. So I have a compromise rifle leaning on the tree which if I get to will not be as good as something else better that I could have chosen to lean on the tree.

Clarification: A .270 Winchester is not a magnum cartridge. It can be used for metallic silhouettes. You may be crossing wires with the more rare .270 Weatherby Magnum.

Can't carry a rifle hiking in a lot of places without a hunting license during hunting season.

Handgun can fall under concealed license and not be considered a hunting implement.

I still can't say I'd ever pick a .270 where bears were a concern. Say whatever you like about bullet technology, but I can have the handgun on me and a bigger more powerful rifle is just better when the chips are down. I don't want to have to explain myself to the bear so he knows what he's getting shot with. An angry bear is a poor student for a lecture.

My apologies, and thank you for the correction to my blooper.

I had been posting comments regarding WMs that I automatically added mag to the 270 Win.

I too carry one of 2 of my 44 mag revolvers in bear country. When hunting in areas not known to have bear I opt for my 22 revolver for venomous snakes.

As to legal carrying, that is why I stipulated, ...depends on location and time of year.... as some states either don't allow a (non legal) firearm while archery or small game hunting. There is also the state by state legality of open and conceal carry.

I concur with having the heavier rifle when specifically going for bear, I also have my 44 mag on my side (or readily available), for those "just in case needed times".

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I have a .375 HOLLAND and HOLLAND. I prefer my .338 WINCHESTER MAGNUM because it's flatter shooting with a 225gr bullet for elk hunting and Elmer Keith helped develop it.

@CoElkHunter
And I have a 35 Whelen that the great Colonel and Mr Howe developed that Elmer Keith also loved and this was well before the puny little 338
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I find it interesting how people scale up to something sub thirty and find it to be a big enough gun for bears. I'm in the camp of .308 diameter and at least 180 grain bullet. If I were a one gun guy the Whelen or the 9.3 sound very nice for conventional long actions with a slight edge to the turdy-phive for bullet availability.

@Forrest Halley
I read it but don't believe it.
You are actually saying the 35 Whelen is a good round.
Lucky I was sitting down when I read that.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

If you start hearing a 25-06 calling to you, you will know true bliss!!!

@375er
Can't go past a nice 25 be it a 250 Savage, 257 Roberts, 25-06 or the 257 Weatherby.
Bob

 

[cmk]

Yep, Fallow - but there's Sambar around too

And Fallow aren't that big or heavy boned at all...

AND

Here's what happens when you hit one with a 480gn Woodleigh at 2150fps out of a .458 Win Mag...
We didn't eat up to the hole...

Russ

View attachment 565795

I shot a fallow hind the other day with the 404. Loaded with 400gn NorthFork PP at approx 2200 fps. Broadside at 20m. Hit just behind the leg, exit wound about an inch in diameter. Not very smashed up, just that the hide was missing a 1-inch circle. Heart and stomach intact, but the lungs were a mushy of course. Pretty much as clean a kill as one could wish for.

However, I have also shot a roe doe with a 400gn A-frame at the same velocity and distance. It hit a bit further forward, and pretty much everything forward of the tenderloin was wasted. Hitting bones will create a lot of secondary projectiles that will cause internal mayhem.

 

[cmk]

How very true. Mine may be (or certainly is) an unpopular opinion, but I'd venture to say that by 1925 all useful sporting cartridges had been invented and perfected. Anything that came afterwards--with perhaps one or two exceptions--either duplicated the performance of something that already existed, or created a new "need" that until then nobody had realized they had.

The power of marketing, ammo companies' imperative to bring something novel every year, and consumers' voracity for the new have given us--and continue to give us--the latest must-have cartridge that somehow few if any missed 100 years ago.

Not that there's anything wrong with any post-1925 introductions, just making an observation. And yes, I'm somewhat of a Luddite.

<Ducks for cover>

What he said!

30-06 is my newest caliber, although most of them are not much older;

9.3x62 - 1905
404 Jeff - ca 1904/1905
6.5x55 - 1892 (formally adopted 1894)
22lr - 1887

There are a few more modern cartridges that could find a home in my safe, e.g. the 223 since it is practical, cheap and available, but the 6.5x55 will easily handle the smaller critters such as foxes or badgers etc, but it'd be irritating get a have a wild boar show itself when you're out looking for fox or roe with a 223 (i.e. not legal here). Or an 8x68S which would give a little more reach/oomph than the '06. But... brass is hard to find, let alone a left-hand rifle. And one could always aim a little higher or get a little closer.

But this is all about hunting. In sport shooting and military use there have probably been developments that would favour some more modern cartridges.

 

[Forrest Halley]

Please change my mind, but it has a lot of positives.

I think you might find that there are lots of calibers that can do what the seven can without the recoil both north and south in diameter. A 375 H&H cures a lot of problems.

@Forrest Halley
I read it but don't believe it.
You are actually saying the 35 Whelen is a good round.
Lucky I was sitting down when I read that.
Bob

I said IF I were a one gun guy it sounded nice with a slight edge for availability. I never said I was getting one as it makes no sense if a body has a .30-06 already.

 

[CBH Australia]

I shot a fallow hind the other day with the 404. Loaded with 400gn NorthFork PP at approx 2200 fps. Broadside at 20m. Hit just behind the leg, exit wound about an inch in diameter. Not very smashed up, just that the hide was missing a 1-inch circle. Heart and stomach intact, but the lungs were a mushy of course. Pretty much as clean a kill as one could wish for.

However, I have also shot a roe doe with a 400gn A-frame at the same velocity and distance. It hit a bit further forward, and pretty much everything forward of the tenderloin was wasted. Hitting bones will create a lot of secondary projectiles that will cause internal mayhem.

So, for those shots a .243 would have been perfectly adequate, maybe even perfectly perfect or just right.

Maybe the little .243 is the Goldilocks cartridge, it's just right.

I think Bob will have to reconsider.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

So, for those shots a .243 would have been perfectly adequate, maybe even perfectly perfect or just right.

Maybe the little .243 is the Goldilocks cartridge, it's just right.

I think Bob will have to reconsider.

@CBH Australia
I will never reconsider the 243 a goldilocks round.
Maybe porridge, soft mushy and not much use.
Adequate maybe if eejits would use the correct bullets but few do.
Bob

 

[DillonG]

I think you might find that there are lots of calibers that can do what the seven can without the recoil both north and south in diameter. A 375 H&H cures a lot of problems.

I said IF I were a one gun guy it sounded nice with a slight edge for availability. I never said I was getting one as it makes no sense if a body has a .30-06 already.

Nothing wrong with the 375. I would not want to haul one up and down a mountain chasing sheep or goats. I’m not very recoil sensitive, so magnums are just fine to manage. That’s me personally, I know a lot of guys and especially gals that prefer short action cartridges.

 

[colorado]

I have a Rem XCR II that weighs 7.5 lb in 375 Weatherby Magnum, that includes Leupold 2-7x scope and rings unloaded. A bit much for sheep or goats. Easy to carry though and if you run into a grizzly a 300g A-Frame at 2800 fps is good medicine.

 

[Forrest Halley]

I have a Rem XCR II that weighs 7.5 lb in 375 Weatherby Magnum, that includes Leupold 2-7x scope and rings unloaded. A bit much for sheep or goats. Easy to carry though and if you run into a grizzly a 300g A-Frame at 2800 fps is good medicine.

View attachment 567068

But what about the .270?

 

[colorado]

But what about the .270?

270 is a better caliber for sheep, plenty for grizz if you can shoot.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I have a Rem XCR II that weighs 7.5 lb in 375 Weatherby Magnum, that includes Leupold 2-7x scope and rings unloaded. A bit much for sheep or goats. Easy to carry though and if you run into a grizzly a 300g A-Frame at 2800 fps is good medicine.

View attachment 567068

Nice rifle setup, but that's got to really give your retinas a ride? I wonder how many ft. lbs. of recoil that produces and what the recoil velocity is?

 

[colorado]

When I first got the rifle (it was a 375 H&H) and I weighed it I thought Oh God it's gonna be worse than my 500 Jeffery. Then it had issues (extractor too large, chamber rough) so Kevin Weaver rechambered it to 375 Weatherby, replaced the extractor with a Sako and welded on the bolt handle. Also replaced the iron sights with NECGs. But that synthetic stock just soaks up recoil. With 375 H&H 300g A-Frame factory ammo recoil is neglible. With Weatherby ammo (300g Partitions at 2800 fps) it's a bit snappy.

 

[Safari Dave]

I guess there always has to be "that" guy, but IME, the .243 has let me down more than any other caliber.

I once made a perfect heart/lung shot on a whitetail buck at about 100 yds with Federal Hydra Shoks.
The deer ran for at least 1/4 mile and came back to the place where I shot it the first time. I shot it again and it staggered and fell this time.

The bullet holes were less than 2 inches apart. I have taken several animals with a .243 and none were what I would have expected with an adequate medium-game cartridge. (I know, if I were shooting premium bullets, the results may have been different, but I don't believe you need to buy $3.00/round ammo to humanely dispatch whitetail deer at 100 yds).

I would opt for a .25 caliber or a 6.5mm with a similar recoil to fill the niche.


Just my 2 cents...

 

[CBH Australia]

I guess there always has to be "that" guy, but IME, the .243 has let me down more than any other caliber.

I once made a perfect heart/lung shot on a whitetail buck at about 100 yds with Federal Hydra Shoks.
The deer ran for at least 1/4 mile and came back to the place where I shot it the first time. I shot it again and it staggered and fell this time.

The bullet holes were less than 2 inches apart. I have taken several animals with a .243 and none were what I would have expected with an adequate medium-game cartridge. (I know, if I were shooting premium bullets, the results may have been different, but I don't believe you need to buy $3.00/round ammo to humanely dispatch whitetail deer at 100 yds).

I would opt for a .25 caliber or a 6.5mm with a similar recoil to fill the niche.


Just my 2 cents...

So, are you in the Creedmoor camp?