Best caliber for deer

[roger]

Brad, welcome to the world of online arguements where being a better typer is more important than a sniper, there are three things that should never be discussed here politics, religion and which caliber to use on the first two..
anywho,
308 -30.06- 270
even tho i find these three choices hohum, these are the proverbial vanilla icecream of the cartridge world... start here...they are economical, have predictable performance in a multitude of situations and popular for that reason. plus the load selections are endless.
put a couple of thousand rounds through it, maybe someday youll crave something that is faster or slower, flatter or heavier. stay away from (dare i say) oddball stuff, like weatherbys, lazzoroni, 3030's, custom grinds and grampa petes army surplus 303's guns. these are specialist tools for specialty applications, sure they work, but right now you need reliable, available, affordable and above all , SAFE.
there are many entry level guns that are the quality that will do justice to your ability/desire. (and of course, it fits ya)
get some miles on your set up and decide at another time. maybe someday youll focus on 'rocky road icecream' and youll have the history to back it up

i would suggest you spend more on a scope than the rifle..then the scope moves with you (if) you get a new rifle someday. for example put a zeiss conquest on a HR single shot break action in 270 win. you cant go wrong with quality optics.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by depopulator

No need to explain - they work. I could also give you just as many examples where standard cartridges failed and magnums got the job done, but I digress. I only intended to provide a real world scenario where a mag was more practical and appropriate than "hype", as you put it.

As far as "taking a low percentage shot.." I suppose that really depends on what your shooting

And like I said, a mag is probably not the right choice for a beginner.

I've seen deer , moose , and elk, run away after being hit with everything from243's to 375H&H's ( yup!) and heard of a lot more than I have seen.
The common denominator in all was BAD SHOOTING!!
A magnum isn't going to help anyone who cannot place a bullet properly.
However, choosing a particular cartridge that a shooter can handle and staying within its ( and their's) limitations to maximize said cartridge will, and should be the ultimate goal of every hunter.
Cat

[rem338win]

Go .270! It has always been the king of deer cartridges (and sheep for that matter) and may it live on many years to come. It is to North American deer hunting what the 375 H&H is to Africa.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

As long as you place the shot, your quarry will drop. Just be patient, a good shot will present itself, if a good shot is not presented then it was'nt meant to be, and wait until the next opportunity.

.

I'm still a bit confused. Every time this subject comes up (and I'm not referring JUST to deer) I hear "It's all about shot placement, not caliber", "If you wound an animal with a cannon, it's still wounded", "Just wait for a good shot". I get it, but I'm still wondering, is there a GOOD ETHICAL SHOT on any animal with a .300 WM that would NOT be a GOOD ETHICAL SHOT with a .243? Are there ever any situations where one might say "This animal would have been killed more quickly if the same shot had been made with a larger caliber bullet of the same quality"? Many of the posters here seem to be saying "No".

Elk have been taken with a .243, so is a .243 as good an elk rifle as any other? If not, WHY? I'm not arguing. I'm confused. It seems that many are saying that the only reason for a larger gun is ego. (and yes, I get that you have to be able to shoot the thing comfortably, but if you can...)

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm still a bit confused. Every time this subject comes up (and I'm not referring JUST to deer) I hear "It's all about shot placement, not caliber", "If you wound an animal with a cannon, it's still wounded", "Just wait for a good shot". I get it, but I'm still wondering, is there a GOOD ETHICAL SHOT on any animal with a .300 WM that would NOT be a GOOD ETHICAL SHOT with a .243? Are there ever any situations where one might say "This animal would have been killed more quickly if the same shot had been made with a larger caliber bullet of the same quality"? Many of the posters here seem to be saying "No".

Elk have been taken with a .243, so is a .243 as good an elk rifle as any other? If not, WHY? I'm not arguing. I'm confused. It seems that many are saying that the only reason for a larger gun is ego. (and yes, I get that you have to be able to shoot the thing comfortably, but if you can...)

I have to agree to a point.

The be patient and wait, is a very subjective statement. Kind of like telling some one who is going totally out of their mind to calm down. Ever had that happen to you, you've had a harrowing situation, and are a bit flippant, and someone will say "just calm down." From personal experience you sort of want to kick them right in the pills.

Shot placement is a function of shooting ability, first, and foremost.
To be able to shoot well, one must practice. To practice and become proficent, and further to enjoy your time practicing, the caliber should be of such a size that it does'nt induce poor habits such as flinches, and or kinaesthesia.

The second part of shot placement is understand your quary's anatomy.


Caliber selection especially for new comers is part and parcel a combination of many things.

1. Understanding the recoil/practice relationship
2. Recognizing that a new shooter will neither be calm or patient.
3. Knowing full well errors in understanding the animals anatomy will raise it's ugly head.
4. Knowing it is common place for persons to automatically shoot to center of mass.

What does that leave us with.
hmmm.

Calibers large enough to drive into the vitals even from bad angles, or when the shot is rushed.
But a caliber of small enough size WRT recoil that the shooter will want to practice with it, and henceforth become proficent with it.

Larger calibers will buy you a bit of room for error, as will projectiles designed in such a fashion that secondary projectiles from bullet upset occur.

But to go to one extreme or the other, be it great large calibers with offensive muzzle blast and recoil, or calibers which lend themselves effective only with proper shot placement, yet being light enough in recoil.

Is pretty much looking for bigger trouble and errors than may already be prevelant with a new shooter.

[ABDUKNUT]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm still wondering, is there a GOOD ETHICAL SHOT on any animal with a .300 WM that would NOT be a GOOD ETHICAL SHOT with a .243?

Elk have been taken with a .243, so is a .243 as good an elk rifle as any other? If not, WHY?

The 'Texas heart shot' comes to mind... Shooting a deer square in the butt, as it stands facing directly away from the shooter. Or, a 'quartering toward' shot, where the target is the shoulder closest to the shooter. Both will kill deer, moose and elk, but are not considered 'ethical shots' by most unless the rifle/cartridge/bullet being used is proven adequate.

Elk can be easily dispatched with a .243, and likely smaller, with a good bullet placed into the ribs or tucked in behind the shoulder. All variables have to play into your favour on this shot, though. Placement must be near exact and this requires a very reliable rest, a known range, favourable weather and lighting, and co-operation from the animal.

'Ethics' are quite dynamic. A shot that you swear you'd never take, might look feasible on the right animal under certain, favourable conditions. This is why using a 'bigger' gun might be the way to go.

I've hunted deer and black bears with a .243 and never thought I was 'under gunned' (and neither did the deer or bears) but then again if I had been carrying a .270 or .300 Win Mag, it doesn't mean I would have neccesarily been 'over gunner' either.

I think a lot of people severely underestimate the firepower of most common hunting firearms. The 12 gauge shotgun; .270 Winchester, .30-'06... All are very capable tools that are really only limited in performance by the knowledge and skills of the shooter. Magnums are neat and fun, but the advantage they offer can really only be taken advantage of by a tiny segment of the hunting population, and only in very specific situations.

Originally Posted by Brad09

Shmag,

The way I figure it, most of my shooting will be fairly open, although I'm sure that I'll make more than one attempt at critters hiding in the brush. I appreciate the suggestion of a new caliber. However, the problem I'm having with it is that .264 Winchester Magnum cartridges, as you said, are a little less common. I'd like to keep my first rifle in a caliber that is widely available, just so I can experiment with several different types of ammunition, for both hunting and curiosity purposes. I've realized in the last 24 hours that not only do I want to learn to hunt, and hunt well, but 15 or 20 years down the road, when I've got some experience, and I encounter a new hunter, I want to be able to share as much information as I can. I find that the people on this site are trying to be helpful, first and foremost, and that means something.

I'll use an example. I am a reptile keeper as a hobby, and have been for a lot of years. And, being part of a misunderstood group there, I've not only done what I can to advance my knowledge of reptile keeping, but I also feel that being part of that social community, it's my responsibility to project a positive image so that others may begin to accept that as a hobby. As far as killing the stereotypical blood-hungry hunter image the general public seems to see, correctly or not, I feel that if I take up hunting as a sport, it's part of my responsibility to do what I can to change how people see hunters. For the life of me, I can't remember who posted in one of my threads, but his signature read "True hunters are conservationists". And I think that, for the large part, that's true.

Brad

Brad, I like you even more with every post that you make. In my mind, you are on the right track and I could only wish that even some older hunters would take on your attitude. I am fortunate enough to have several calibers to choose from for deer hunting. I pick my caliber based on likely shot distance. For possibly long range shots, I carry a .270WSM. When I hunt in close cover, my Marlin .444 lever is the go-to gun.

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by Brad09

" . . . I can't remember who posted in one of my threads, but his signature read "True hunters are conservationists". And I think that, for the large part, that's true . . . "

Very close quote Brad ... you only missed one word!
All kidding aside, I really do believe in that statement. I try to 'hunt' by it, as best I can.

'Kudos' Brad ... another excellent thread! It makes for a good read, and once again, for the most part, you are getting some very good advice. Don't worry about the 'verbal jousting' (magnum vs. non-magnum, etc.) ... it was bound to happen.

As for my two pennies ---

I would never recommend that a new hunter consider buying a 'magnum' for his/her first hunting rifle (all of the main reasons have already been posted). After you get a few hunting seasons under your belt, you can give that idea some thought.

For a non-magnum hunting rife that is both well established and very versatile, and has abundant off-the-shelf ammunition available (even in Katmandu ), you can't go wrong picking from the .270/.308/.30-06 family. Of these three, I tend to favour the .308 because of its 'short-action' feature ... the cartridge is shorter, so the bolt doesn't have to be pulled back as far, which means you can cycle another round into the chamber faster and easier.

Also, this link might help a bit; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rifle_cartridges. You can read up on all the different rifle ammunition that's available.

Good Hunting!

Dean