selecting a caliber and the double standard

[grumpyvette]

Ive consistently seen that theres an obvious double standard in selecting the correct caliber, if you look at the wide difference in the calibers you see suggested as ideal for hunting most big game.

lets say you ask whats ideal for hunting deer and elk, or even moose youll usually get a suggested caliber range from about the 270 win to the 340 wby, and your looking at animals that range from about 120lbs to maybe 1750 plus lbs on average
ranges are frequently discussed extending well past 350 to even 600 yards, and at those ranges energy figures drop to below 1000 ft lbs in some cases.muzzle energy seldom is over 4300ft lbs

ask about a rifle to use on leopard, cougar and lion, and brown bear and you get suggestions, starting at the 300 mags up thru the 375H&H going up to a 458 LOTT, on animals that range from maybe 120lbs to maybe 800lbs
now obviously the ranges tend to be shorter over which you'll reasonably engage dangerous game, mostly because your shot placement becomes far more critical because if you fail to drop the animal it can and sometimes will cause you severe bodily harm,ranges tend to be shorter so in theory the rifles retain even more of their muzzle energy, in fact muzzle energy figures tend to start in the 4000 ft lb ranges , ranges discussed tend to remain well under 100 yards and 30-60 yards are far more common

so obviously the dangerous game rifle caliber selection tends to favor a good deal more energy and bullet weight, placed on the target and its obviously more important that you quickly drop the game.

so the rather obvious conclusion is that because ELK and deer, and moose rarely attempt to kill hunters its far less important that you drop them on the spot!

well having hunted big game for 40 plus years Id suggest that most hunters would be far better off thinking about caliber selection and ranges they can effectively use those rifles at with a good deal more of that large dangerous game mentality
a great deal of the problems guys have with bullets results from trying to push a smaller and lighter in weight than ideal projectile to higher velocities than many bullet designs can reliably function at, you might be amazed at how consistent most cup & core bullet designs work if bullets are at least a .270 sectional density and if you don,t exceed 3000fps at the muzzle .

Its been my experience that its a darn rare hunter that under field conditions can accurately place his shot at over about 200 yards, and most would be far better hunters if they limited their shots to shorter distances, and perhaps carried a bit larger caliber

your thoughts gentlemen?

 

[rbl2]

You'll get no arguement from this old man. For one, I have never had the good fortune to hunt large game unless white tail deer count. Nor have I ever hunted a predator although I did one time cross paths with a mountain lion. Damned pretty animal.

I have always thought it better to use a rifle of sufficient caliber that one was comfortable and proficient with than one of a larger caliber that would cause one to flinch or hesitate to squeeze off a round with. I have read repeatedly that a large slow moving bullet was better than a faster, lighter one. I'm not going to argue with anyone about which bullet or rifle is better than others.

While far from an expert like one sees on tv or in magazines I'm a pretty good shot. I can take my 9mm and at 8 yds, as fast as I can pull the trigger I can put 8 shots into a 3 1/2" circle. I can't do that with a larger caliber hand gun, probably because I have small hands.

Neither will I apologize for using an sks. I once killed a deer at 375 yards with it using open sights, one shot kill. Many people will argue with and critisize me for using that rifle but it has never let me down. I have never had to fire more than one round to drop a deer with it.

I have two reproduction civil war muskets. An 1861 Cook and Bros. and an 1841 Mississippi, both in .58 cal. With both I can shoot a 3" circle at 100 yards. I've read that they are capable of bringing down the largest game that North America has with a single shot. Upon reading that I gave it some thought. Correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a polar bear. While I would very much like to hunt something that sees me as its next meal I have no desire to do it using a single shot muzzle loader.


Back to your comments, in a nutshell, I would agree that shot placement is far more important than caliber size. There certainly is room for arguement in that statement though. One does not go hunting elephants with a rabbit gun or vice versa.