Definition of an "all around" Alberta big game rifle. - Page 2

rena0040 · #31 12-08-2007, 01:52 PM

i'm throwing in my first rifle ever handed down to me. Ross .303 with a straight pull action. Brought down tons of deer over generations.

duffy4 · #32 12-08-2007, 10:26 PM

"This isn't a thread asking what you think the best "all around Alberta big game gun" is. More like a discussion of what we might think is the deffinition of such a gun (for the AVERAGE HUNTER). What is required in one."

I guess I should have realized that not many would honor my request and stick to my topic.

I should hav realized that 1. loads of people would simply talk about CARTRIDGES instead of GUNS. and 2. That loads of people would suggest that a cetian CARTRIDGE (usually the one they use) was the best all around GUN.

I have used a Win. model 70 with a 3 to 9 scope, chambered in .264 win. mag. for most of my big game hunting. It has served me very well and I have killed a great variety of big game with it. However I would never say that it was a great all around rifle for Alberta big game for the average hunter.

-Ammo is hard to find and very expensive.
-It is great for long range shooting when you have time and a rest, but is not so handy when you jump a moose or deer at close range in the bush.
-I have never looked at the charts on recoil so I don't know how it stacks up to the "30/06 benchmark" so I don't know if the average hunter would not like shooting it.

"i think it would have to be light with low recoil. some hunters put on a lot of miles walking, have a good sellection of different grains and lead,be cheap enough that hunters could afford to buy it,"
This post by Mud Slug is the kind of comment I was fishing for.

Robin in Rocky

#33 12-08-2007, 11:26 PM

.

Donny Bear · #34 12-09-2007, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffy4

"This isn't a thread asking what you think the best "all around Alberta big game gun" is. More like a discussion of what we might think is the deffinition of such a gun (for the AVERAGE HUNTER). What is required in one."

I guess I should have realized that not many would honor my request and stick to my topic.

I should hav realized that 1. loads of people would simply talk about CARTRIDGES instead of GUNS. and 2. That loads of people would suggest that a cetian CARTRIDGE (usually the one they use) was the best all around GUN.

I have used a Win. model 70 with a 3 to 9 scope, chambered in .264 win. mag. for most of my big game hunting. It has served me very well and I have killed a great variety of big game with it. However I would never say that it was a great all around rifle for Alberta big game for the average hunter.

-Ammo is hard to find and very expensive.
-It is great for long range shooting when you have time and a rest, but is not so handy when you jump a moose or deer at close range in the bush.
-I have never looked at the charts on recoil so I don't know how it stacks up to the "30/06 benchmark" so I don't know if the average hunter would not like shooting it.

"i think it would have to be light with low recoil. some hunters put on a lot of miles walking, have a good sellection of different grains and lead,be cheap enough that hunters could afford to buy it,"
This post by Mud Slug is the kind of comment I was fishing for.

Robin in Rocky

sorry for missing the point for me Light accurate and an extension of me a trusted friend so to speak thats why the only best gun / rifle is the one that works for you and if you have found that then heck how can you have something so good and not share, everyone should be as happy as me shouldn't they?

Grizzly Adams · #35 12-09-2007, 11:23 AM

O.K., so I'm going to distill the essence of your wisdom.

A caliber, between 7[I include here the .270] and 8 MM, firing a bullet weighing between 150 and 200 grains, at a velocity between 2500 and 3000 fp/s. Covers a lot of ground.
Grizz

VerySavage · #36 12-09-2007, 05:42 PM

Much of what I have read in these two pages seems to line up with my thoughts when I went shopping for my little rifle & chose my Ruger M77mkII .260 Rem caliber Stainless Laminate Compact Rifle & Burris 3-9x42 Fullfield II scope. Light weight, good balance, compact dimensions in a reliable rifle with minimumal recoil and good accuracy & killing power down range. I am considering trying to build up a Barnes TSX handload in 120gr or 130gr, currently I have been using 140gr Hornady Bullets or Nosler Partition bullets.
--Ken

Suka · #37 12-09-2007, 06:11 PM

Definitely a 30-06. I've always been a: 243/270/300winmag fan(serious fan) Fast & flat. Plus, the ballistics are comparable; that is, set down the 243, pick up the 300, it shoots the same. (87GR243, 110GR270, 180GR300)
Couple yrs ago bought an '06. I'm impressed. If I was asked by someone who could afford one gun, I'd suggest an 06. A little more kick than the 270, but not unmanageable, and super versatile.
Two rifles, I'd say 270/300. Best bang for the buck in my opinion, a 30-06 blr and a 12ga remington pump is all you'd ever really need. OK, and a .22. And then a clay pidgeon chucker, just cause it's so much fun, and they've really come down in price.

#38 12-09-2007, 06:22 PM

That's interesting Suka...I think I killed my first animal with a .30-06 last year as well. I've been around lots but just never used one myself. I've always considerd them a very versatile, medium recoil, calibre but must admit that my respect has grown. Still think I might pick the .300WM as most versatile but for more recoil sensitive shooters the .30-06 definitely jumps to the front of the line.

#39 12-09-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

I must disagree with one statement.

In my opinion,a good hunter never goes hunting without taking plenty of ammunition,so I don't consider the popularity of ammunition in out of the way places to be a factor.I never buy any factory centerfire loads,and I have never run short of any ammunition while on a hunt.

Good point SJ......I'm a factory ammo shooter and have never once worried about whether the store in smalltownville, AB carries my particular calibre.

nekred · #40 12-10-2007, 10:30 AM

30-06...period

nekred · #41 12-10-2007, 10:32 AM

or 12 gauge...

nekred · #42 12-10-2007, 10:32 AM

Or a 60lb bow...

Stinky Coyote · #43 12-10-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffy4

This isn't a thread asking what you think the best "all around Alberta big game gun" is. More like a discussion of what we might think is the deffinition of such a gun (for the AVERAGE HUNTER). What is required in one.

1. Must have enough power to bring down a deer, a bear (black only at present) a moose, an elk.

2. Must NOT be (a) SO powerful that the average hunter cannot comfortably shoot it.

3. Must have ammo readily avalible at a resonable price as the average hunter doesn't reload.

4. Must shoot accurately enough for the average hunter to make lethal hits at a resonable range in open country (sheep and pronghorn country)

5. Must be resonably fast to point and shoot 2 or 3 shots when the hunting requires (in the bush at close range "jumped" animals)

Do you agree or disagree with my requirments so far? Any additional thoughts?

Robin in Rocky

6. Must be of a reasonable size/length/weight for the average shooter to handle for the majority of the above said conditions/circumstances.

Thats about all i can see needing added to your list imo.

And in that case...a Tikka T3 (any of the trim/models available) in .270 fits the bill perfect....that slick action can be hussled amazingly quick for a bolt action.

#44 12-10-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Wanna talk about adequate sectional densities?
I'd say 1500ftlbs@300 and a SD of no less than .250

While I'm definitely no expert on sectional density, it's a term I hear bandied about a lot on the board these days and I have to admit that I really don't see much importance with modern bullets but damn, I open to being educated here. I understand what it is and how it applies and I guess in the old days when all bullets were basically contructed the same it made a considerable difference but now with the huge variety bullets and bullet construction I don't see it being rellevant....at least when comparing bullets in the same SD neighbourhood. You can shoot four bullets of identical calibre and weight (ie identical sectional density) into a balistic medium and get vastly different results in regards to penetration. The importance of SD in my mind died with the invention of jacketed bullets but I definitely could be wrong. It seems to me it's a term the gun writers bring out when they get writers' block and gun manufacturers bring out when they need to hype a new calibre. Any thoughts?

Dick284 · #45 12-10-2007, 05:12 PM

I'll bite TJ:
Sectional density is indeed a way of discribing the penatration capabilities of similarly designed bullets.
It is an effective way to compare bullets when the diameter is diffrent. Ie .277" to .308"
If you note the .277" bullets having a Sd of about .250 are of about 135grains.
.308" bullets of 165grain carry a SD of .248.
So if the bullets are of similar design and construction it can be considered that given the same conditions penetration would be very similar.
Remember SD is the effect of bullet weight to diameter, and smaller diameter bullets will penetrate more efficently because of their smaller frontal profile. But a heavier bullet will out pentrate a lighter bullet if the diameter stays constant.
So all things being equal similar consrtructed bullets of similar SD's should penetrate similarly.
You cant say that a 130grain 30cal will penetrate the same as a 130grain 27cal bullet if they are constructed the same.
That is where Sectional Density becomes important, when you want to compare diffrent diameter projectiles and how they will penetrate.

#46 12-10-2007, 05:19 PM

Actually that makes good sense Dick......I just find it funny when it is used to promote a certain calibre as being superior to another. I can make up more inches than an animal is thick at 300 yards with just about any big game calibre by going to a bullet like a Barnes if penetration is the only concern. Once the bullet exits the other side, it's no more lethal if it goes 6 inches or 600 yards. For comparisons of identical bullets it does make sense but I think putting a sectional density number as a requirement for a big game calibre went out the door with pure lead bullets. IMHO anyhow.

chuck0039 · #47 12-10-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 220swifty

I gotta say, the 280 rem stands out in my mind. Gentle recoil, fairly common (although not like the 30-06) ammo, which is cheaper than magnum ammo, and kills near and far (deer from 50-320 yds comfortably taken wiht mine, and i have only really hunted it one season). If grizz gets thrown back into the mix, then i would have to get into the relm of the magnums, likely a 300, but the current list you pose is easily covered with the 280 Rem and the right bullet.

i would have to agree with you on all aspects.. i have a Rem 280 mountain rifle and love it. i love my 300 sako aswell does the job for deer and moose but the 280 gets my vote

#48 12-10-2007, 05:25 PM

.

Dick284 · #49 12-10-2007, 05:27 PM

Just for kicks look at the bullet weights that fall in the .250 DS range.
.257cal- 115gr.
.264cal- 125gr.
.277cal- 130gr. (.242)
.284cal- 140gr.
.308cal- 165gr.

No wonder gig here, they are all popular bullet weights in the given calibers. And even in cup/core bullets will kill 80% of all the critter in Duffy's framework.
Of course switching to a Barnes bullet will make them a penetrating SOB, and thus better suited to the bigger game listed.
That is exactly what I am trying to get accross.
Otherwise some wise guy speaks up about 125gr. 30 cals that are not of controled expansion design, and says it's as heavy as the 6.5 bullet so why wont it work.

#50 12-10-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

I think SD isn't as important as it once might have been either sheep, but I would say the real breakpoint was the advent of controlled expansion bullets (I guess led by Barnes and Nosler). Folks as old as us should remember the writings of Rick Jamison - he used to be quite the advocate of high SD for hunting applications. His position sure changed over the years with premium bullets however....

Ya, some of the old timers really seem to be hanging on to it but I agree that jacketed bullets changed it's importance totally and then the advent of bonded and so on up the bullet food chain have made it nothing more than a mathematical equasion for comparing indentical bullets of different weights and or calibre. Just think of all the modern calibres that wouldn't qualify under the old thoughts of minimum sectional density requirements?

Salvelinus · #51 12-10-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck0039

i would have to agree with you on all aspects.. i have a Rem 280 mountain rifle and love it. i love my 300 sako aswell does the job for deer and moose but the 280 gets my vote

Though the 280 rem is an awesome caliber, I don't think it should make this list simply because not enough rifles are chambered in it. Also note that the average hunter is probably buying guns in the $400-800 range. Most "common" guns in this price category are only chambered in the really popular calibers. Personally I find that there are very few rifles that fit me right. When you go to a more rare cartridge you're severely limited in gun choices.

Another vote here for the .270

#52 12-10-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Of course switching to a Barnes bullet will make them a penetrating SOB, and thus better suited to the bigger game listed.

And I guess that's the point I was trying to make. That is in no way factored into the SD equation making it virtually useless when determining the required SD to get a job done. This equation came about long before bullets like the Barnes or the Partion for that matter were invented. At one time it likely was a determining factor in choosing an appropriate big game calbre but I'd say it's no more than a mathmatical equation these days for comparing identical bullets of different weight and/or calibre.

#53 12-10-2007, 05:39 PM

.

Dick284 · #54 12-10-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya, some of the old timers really seem to be hanging on to it but I agree that jacketed bullets changed it's importance totally and then the advent of bonded and so on up the bullet food chain have made it nothing more than a mathematical equasion for comparing indentical bullets of different weights and or calibre. Just think of all the modern calibres that wouldn't qualify under the old thoughts of minimum sectional density requirements?

Exactly TJ:
The old .28 to.30 SD requirement for game larger than deer is about as dead as can be with the advent of contolled expansion bullets.
I seriously doubt Mrs. D would be killing moose with 100grain .277's if they were not Barnes X's.
Back in the day I ran those bullets head to head with 130grain Partitions at velocities which gave almost similar impact energies, and the 100grain X's duplicated the performance of the 130 Partitions in wet phone book media.
And as for on game performance well the game sure aint complaining.

uglyelk · #55 12-11-2007, 12:59 AM

I think the 30.06 is a great all round caliber for hunting in Alberta. Good flat shooter with a great variety of factory loads behind every counter.
No problem harvesting deer, moose or anything small at long distance. There's a load to do the job.

However, I'm not keen on the long action and find they are beasts to shoot if your 30.06 is a light weight rifle. My junky 710 kicks the crap out of me. I weigh in around 220. But I'd prefer a little less punch in my shoulder.

I 've opted for the .308. shorter action and similar balistics. Velocities are like a 5% less than the 30.06 per similar bullets but the shoulder punch is not present. Makes for a quicker cycling round and better targeting in my look at the world. Only down side is the variety of loads behind the counter is not as diverse as with the 30.06. Guess thats just a reason to investigate making my own.

nof60 · #56 12-11-2007, 01:20 AM

Lee Enfield .303 British is the best all around calibre. At least it is if you compare how much game they have killed to all other calibres (30-30 might be close)

Seriously though as much as I love my .338 I gotta say that my 7mm-08 is probably perfect for alberta. At least I like it. Anything in that range of 270-300 calibre with light recoil so basically .270, .280, 7mm-08, .308 any of those. I never owned a 30-06 (shot lots of em though) but they too are quite versatile...just maybe getting to be a little dated.

Unregistered user · #57 12-11-2007, 05:20 AM

I could never handicap myself to just one gun, life's too short. Rifles are a bargain these days so it's nice to be able to get guns specific to the job. Interesting answers here though.

nof60 · #58 12-11-2007, 05:45 AM

Unregistered has a great point. There is no one gun or calibre for all situations. This is great for both gun manufactureers, dealers and closet gun junkies like me. What a great thread.

I to hate seagulls

Hey we agree on everything

209x50 · #59 12-11-2007, 08:50 AM

I love guns, I have 9 no 10 (New Triumph last week!) .50 cal muzzleloaders alone. Sandi jokes that we own more gun lockers than the gun store, I get to remind her that her toys fill a couple of them. BUT, if I were to pack one and only one for the rest of the time my choice would fit nicely into Duffy's definition, a model 88 in .308. I know, I know not a he-man cartridge and not a sleek super high end bolt either. I have a cabinet just for the 300s, 338s, 375s and 416, the little old 308 doesn't even rate "the big boy" cabinet, but it still is my favorite cartridge. Loaded with good 165s it is more than capable for anything here.

harv3589 · #60 12-11-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nof60

I never owned a 30-06 (shot lots of em though) but they too are quite versatile...just maybe getting to be a little dated.

Not dated, the 30-06 just has some great history and class...the other will never have that.

I have gone the opposite route to some of you and I sold off all my rifles to goto a one rifle battery and guess what it's a 30-06. I just found myself not even using the others, some of which were brand new and never even had a round in the chamber...no point having them. So off they went and I bought a higher end rifle for everything, Sako 85 stainless/sythetic, soon going to wear a new McMillan.